Honest question, does rejecting your bishop's authority count as schism - this goes for Mrs. Pelosi as well as those priests? Or can you just say there's an appeal and then anything goes?
I think she could claim "I thought that an appeal has a suspensive effect" (regardless of whether it does) and I think the priests could claim "an EMHC did it, it's not my fault, and also, I don't know which one it was" or, if it was really them and they prefer not to lie, "oh! I thought you were bluffing!"
On the bright side at least she hasn't been telling a story about asking the Pope what to do in a private audience and being allegedly reassured by him that she should keep doing what she is doing (I think it is generally assumed that this is safe to do *up to a point* because he has too much dignity to just go around refuting everyone who does this.)
That’s my question. Is archbishop Cordeleone’s prohibition suspended on appeal? If so the Vatican can just stall instead of ruling as they should in Cordeleone’s favor. After Pelosi dies they can drop the case. She gets her victory over Cordeleone. She could probably stick it to him by getting in his communion line somewhere. Force him to give her communion.
One wonders if certain Curial cardinals are working hard to figure out a way to side with Pelosi, and to Stricklandize Cordeleone in the process.
I add one more reader who would like JD to clarify that. I did read in Ed’s comment in the Friday post the following:
“Pelosi confirmed she’s continued to receive the sacrament, since her appeal has suspensive effect on Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s pastoral prohibition, which he issued after lengthy attempts to engage privately with the congresswoman over her public advocacy for abortion.“
I honestly don't know. Technically, the prohibition of 915 forbids anyone in SF from administering the Eucharist to her. It doesn't, as such, prohibit her from receiving it. Might seem a small distinction, but not irrelevant to this discussion.
Since we are not to judge other human beings I will not say that this would be a pyrrhic victory for *her*, but if I were running a Monte Carlo simulation of randomly generated souls, for some of them I would worry that it would be.
I doubt anything will come out of Rome. JD is totally correct and brings the receipts. Which is really too bad, not because I want to subject the Speaker to public humiliation, etc. But for the honest good of her soul and the soul of the disobedient priest(s) who knowingly subvert the Archbishop's directives. It is grossly disloyal and disobedient.
Priests are subject to the Bishop's direction and disobedient priests in the Archdiocese should be dealt with the canonical actions available swiftly. For the good of the priest's and Pelosi's soul.
I guess we can start with Cardinal Cupich issuing new guidance that kneeling for communion is discouraged in his diocese. The reasoning in his letter is a fun read when considering the rampant liturgical abuse that he allows Fr. Pfleger to conduct every mass at St. Sabinas.
I guess if I were in Chicago I could follow his reasoning about processing in a pilgrimage, and process on my knees for the *entire* distance from the pew to the front (as one processes on one's knees up the Holy Stairs) but "obedience" is a very fun evangelical counsel and many graces can be obtained through it so if I were in Chicago I would actually take advantage of the opportunity to mortify my will in a small matter, and in return ask for some big things.
Minor edit, it looks like the following paragraph is missing a number in the year:
"Sources close to Cordileone told The Pillar that the archbishop had attempted several times in early 202 to meet with Pelosi because he had hoped to avoid a public confrontation, and because he hoped that a conversation with her might change her mind."
"When controversy flared over teachers in same-sex marriages at an Indiana Catholic high school — and a recourse sat pending in a Vatican dicastery — the pope took a novel route, by sending an emissary to work things out, and letting the issue go formally unresolved for more than five years."
Still unresolved!! This is Rome’s MO. I think they are waiting till people die so they won’t wind up with egg on their face. These stories as well as our parish waiting 5 years,yup,,for our pastor to be reinstated makes me wonder how these folks look in the mirror. They sure don’t see Jesus or anything He stands for lookin back.We have modern day Pharisees in the church now.They spell Jesus’ message RULE not LOVE. They play with people’s souls. Thank God some are able to prayerfully discern this
It seems that Mrs. Pelosi is taking an "in your face" approach to this. If she seriously wanted to receive the Eucharist, she could receive in D.C. (I doubt Cardinal Gregory would object) or, if she chose to receive within Abp. Cordileone's jurisdiction, I believe she could probably convince a priest (as has been reported) to give her Communion privately or, at least, discretely; apparently, some local priests have little qualms about disobeying their bishops instructions.
No. Her intention is to show Abp. Cordileone that she has "the bigger balls" with her "I don't care what you say Ima gonna do whatever I please" approach.
Kudos to His Eminence for the pastoral approach to rectifying a scandalous situation and, more importantly (in this litigious society of ours) documenting his efforts. Even with the Vatican's reluctance to take any kind of definitive position (on anything), it seems that the local bishop's authority in this matter will not be overruled but it will languish in bureaucratic limbo for years in the hope that this becomes the next Pope's problem or if Mrs. Pelosi gets to present her case to the Supreme Judge herself.
I feel that if she had genuine fear of God, like Padre Pio, she would follow her bishop's guidance, even if she disagreed, and rather than continue to publicly present herself for communion and tell everyone that she has done it, she should have the obedience to meet with him to settle this privately instead of with statements to the press.
Pray for this arrogant woman that she will repent of her sins of supporting abortion and receiving the Eucharist in a state of grave sin. Also, at her age, it is entirely possible that her earthly life will end before any decision is made by the Vatican.
Correction: There is a Judge and his name IS Cordelione see canon 391 §1. A bishop exercises JUDICIAL power. The eternal Judge, Jesus, gives him that very power.
I have to admit that when I heard about her fall my thought was that perhaps an archangel’s wing might have brushed against her just before she took her tumble. One would think that at her age she’d be concerned about getting her ducks in a row as she has more days behind her than ahead.
Does this mean that every time that you hear a new born baby cry, Pelosi has been denied communion?
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has done a good job. God knew us in the womb. Abortion is murder. He has asked her to share dialog. She has ignored him.
Discretion is the better part of valor. Some people seem to want the Pope himself to come out and excommunicate Pelosi. Not to worry - she has done so herself and digs deeper into the abyss each time she sacrilegiously receives the Eucharist. She's been told what not to do, so have the priests and lay people, but! This tells us of the level of rebelliousness, revolt and sheer evil defiance displayed by the tares in the Church. Fanning the flames of this would only encourage even more sacrilege from anti-Catholics and intruders besides.
Give the Holy Father and the Curia some credit for caution and for the wisdom of 2,000 years of Vatican diplomacy.
Don't expect them to provoke even more horrors being perpetrated at Mass.
It's too late on a Friday now for me to digging into this too deeply – and we might not even be able to get very far without seeing some actual documents – but re: "In principle, the archbishop could pursue some canonical consequence for priests in violation of his directive." But isn't this also potentially not true, if there's a legitimate recourse pending, and the effect of the original declaration is canonically suspended until it is resolved? (But it seems we don't have enough information to be certain, since Canon 1737 §3 seems to imply that suspension is sometimes automatic and sometimes discretionary, and at the very least we would need to see the decrees to confirm whether or not it was suspended in a discretionary manner, if not automatic.)
further, I'm kind of confused about what kind of act applying c. 915 actually is. There's a lot of procedural ambiguity here.
Also, "there's a legitimate recourse pending, and the effect of the original declaration is canonically suspended until it is resolved" would be a possible line of defense for those priests, but I think the archbishop could *pursue* some disciplinary measure ahead of that. right?
On second thought, I suppose the correct answer has to be: If suspension is not automatic by the law (and I’m guessing that’s correct but would need to confirm), then the burden of proof is firmly on anyone who wants to argue for the suspension. Failing proof of that, the effect is not presumably suspended and the Bishop could totally enforce it.
It seems like there's some pretty obvious lacunas here. How were they not spotted before? Is this the first time a bishop has actually 915'd someone, or the first time that person has filed an appeal?
Denying her reception of Communion is an act of mercy for her soul.
She remains, obstinately, proud of her facilitation of abortion and erroneously believes that when her time of judgment comes, the Lord will look favorably on her “accomplishments”.
Pray for this poor woman. Because she has precious little time left…as do we all.
// Cordileone, for his part, was careful to document the gravity of her advocacy on abortion policy, and his repeated written warnings, exhortations, and invitations to pastoral dialogues. To the extent that t’s were crossed and i’s dotted, the archbishop made meticulous notes, which according to sources close to the dicastery, were forwarded directly to Rome.
All of that means that procedurally the dicastery is not likely in a position to overturn the case. //
But, then, this pope and his chums being who and what they are, the bishop can safely assume that the Catholic Church of 2024 regards the wrong school of American bishops as being of much less importance than the right school of American politicians.
Maybe this is like the time during Covid when asked about Abp Cordileone saying a one-person limit on Churches was insane she went on a long tirade about how the Archbishop should follow the science because she had received Communion in San Francisco safely because there were like twelve people there and everyone was spread out and distancing.
Then her staff later helpfully pointed out that she must have hallucinated the entire thing because she's been virtually attending Mass since the beginning of the Pandemic like the rest of the hoi polloi.
Really the best case scenario here for her soul is that she's lying.
Honest question, does rejecting your bishop's authority count as schism - this goes for Mrs. Pelosi as well as those priests? Or can you just say there's an appeal and then anything goes?
I think she could claim "I thought that an appeal has a suspensive effect" (regardless of whether it does) and I think the priests could claim "an EMHC did it, it's not my fault, and also, I don't know which one it was" or, if it was really them and they prefer not to lie, "oh! I thought you were bluffing!"
On the bright side at least she hasn't been telling a story about asking the Pope what to do in a private audience and being allegedly reassured by him that she should keep doing what she is doing (I think it is generally assumed that this is safe to do *up to a point* because he has too much dignity to just go around refuting everyone who does this.)
You forgot the ever popular, "Nancy who? I wouldn't know her if I saw her, so if I gave her communion it would have been an accident."
That’s my question. Is archbishop Cordeleone’s prohibition suspended on appeal? If so the Vatican can just stall instead of ruling as they should in Cordeleone’s favor. After Pelosi dies they can drop the case. She gets her victory over Cordeleone. She could probably stick it to him by getting in his communion line somewhere. Force him to give her communion.
One wonders if certain Curial cardinals are working hard to figure out a way to side with Pelosi, and to Stricklandize Cordeleone in the process.
I wouldn't have thought so, but surely a canon lawyer can answer this question. @JDFlynn @EdCondon
I add one more reader who would like JD to clarify that. I did read in Ed’s comment in the Friday post the following:
“Pelosi confirmed she’s continued to receive the sacrament, since her appeal has suspensive effect on Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s pastoral prohibition, which he issued after lengthy attempts to engage privately with the congresswoman over her public advocacy for abortion.“
I honestly don't know. Technically, the prohibition of 915 forbids anyone in SF from administering the Eucharist to her. It doesn't, as such, prohibit her from receiving it. Might seem a small distinction, but not irrelevant to this discussion.
> She gets her victory over Cordeleone.
Since we are not to judge other human beings I will not say that this would be a pyrrhic victory for *her*, but if I were running a Monte Carlo simulation of randomly generated souls, for some of them I would worry that it would be.
“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
I doubt anything will come out of Rome. JD is totally correct and brings the receipts. Which is really too bad, not because I want to subject the Speaker to public humiliation, etc. But for the honest good of her soul and the soul of the disobedient priest(s) who knowingly subvert the Archbishop's directives. It is grossly disloyal and disobedient.
Priests are subject to the Bishop's direction and disobedient priests in the Archdiocese should be dealt with the canonical actions available swiftly. For the good of the priest's and Pelosi's soul.
"They are a generation whose hearts go astray and they do not know my ways..."
Anything that could be said on this matter has already been said many moons ago.
Alack, my kingdom for something novel!
> Alack, my kingdom for something novel!
Ecclesiastes 1:9 versus Revelation 21:5 STEEL CAGE MATCH don't miss it!
SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY! It's the Ladder (of Divine Ascent) Match of the ages (unto ages)!
Well...let me see what I can find.
I guess we can start with Cardinal Cupich issuing new guidance that kneeling for communion is discouraged in his diocese. The reasoning in his letter is a fun read when considering the rampant liturgical abuse that he allows Fr. Pfleger to conduct every mass at St. Sabinas.
https://www.chicagocatholic.com/cardinal-blase-j.-cupich/-/article/2024/12/11/-as-we-pray-
Trent Horn delayed his Wed video because he thought it was too indecent.
http://youtube.com/post/UgkxL44nPDATaRhkW5IsSyzz2QQSA1NH5GAw?si=HyvRet-EIe17JV36
He then when AWOL and started deleting all of his social media accounts without notice or explanation, which freaked a bunch of people out.
https://x.com/FrMatthewLC/status/1867364626415202708
meh, bo-ring.
I saw a toddler pet a puppy today, now that was pretty cool.
What kind of puppy?!
Some kind of collie or cattle dog. I'm not sure, I'm more of a cat person.
I guess if I were in Chicago I could follow his reasoning about processing in a pilgrimage, and process on my knees for the *entire* distance from the pew to the front (as one processes on one's knees up the Holy Stairs) but "obedience" is a very fun evangelical counsel and many graces can be obtained through it so if I were in Chicago I would actually take advantage of the opportunity to mortify my will in a small matter, and in return ask for some big things.
Minor edit, it looks like the following paragraph is missing a number in the year:
"Sources close to Cordileone told The Pillar that the archbishop had attempted several times in early 202 to meet with Pelosi because he had hoped to avoid a public confrontation, and because he hoped that a conversation with her might change her mind."
Well, he has been trying for a very long time!
"When controversy flared over teachers in same-sex marriages at an Indiana Catholic high school — and a recourse sat pending in a Vatican dicastery — the pope took a novel route, by sending an emissary to work things out, and letting the issue go formally unresolved for more than five years."
Note: It is STILL unresolved.
I was wondering about that. 5 years!
Still unresolved!! This is Rome’s MO. I think they are waiting till people die so they won’t wind up with egg on their face. These stories as well as our parish waiting 5 years,yup,,for our pastor to be reinstated makes me wonder how these folks look in the mirror. They sure don’t see Jesus or anything He stands for lookin back.We have modern day Pharisees in the church now.They spell Jesus’ message RULE not LOVE. They play with people’s souls. Thank God some are able to prayerfully discern this
It seems that Mrs. Pelosi is taking an "in your face" approach to this. If she seriously wanted to receive the Eucharist, she could receive in D.C. (I doubt Cardinal Gregory would object) or, if she chose to receive within Abp. Cordileone's jurisdiction, I believe she could probably convince a priest (as has been reported) to give her Communion privately or, at least, discretely; apparently, some local priests have little qualms about disobeying their bishops instructions.
No. Her intention is to show Abp. Cordileone that she has "the bigger balls" with her "I don't care what you say Ima gonna do whatever I please" approach.
Kudos to His Eminence for the pastoral approach to rectifying a scandalous situation and, more importantly (in this litigious society of ours) documenting his efforts. Even with the Vatican's reluctance to take any kind of definitive position (on anything), it seems that the local bishop's authority in this matter will not be overruled but it will languish in bureaucratic limbo for years in the hope that this becomes the next Pope's problem or if Mrs. Pelosi gets to present her case to the Supreme Judge herself.
I feel that if she had genuine fear of God, like Padre Pio, she would follow her bishop's guidance, even if she disagreed, and rather than continue to publicly present herself for communion and tell everyone that she has done it, she should have the obedience to meet with him to settle this privately instead of with statements to the press.
And maybe my words of "settle this" should say "discuss this" in a pastoral way.
Pray for this arrogant woman that she will repent of her sins of supporting abortion and receiving the Eucharist in a state of grave sin. Also, at her age, it is entirely possible that her earthly life will end before any decision is made by the Vatican.
There is ONE judge. His name is NOT Cordelione
Correction: There is a Judge and his name IS Cordelione see canon 391 §1. A bishop exercises JUDICIAL power. The eternal Judge, Jesus, gives him that very power.
And she then takes a tumble down a marble staircase at the age of eighty-four…
I have to admit that when I heard about her fall my thought was that perhaps an archangel’s wing might have brushed against her just before she took her tumble. One would think that at her age she’d be concerned about getting her ducks in a row as she has more days behind her than ahead.
Does this mean that every time that you hear a new born baby cry, Pelosi has been denied communion?
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has done a good job. God knew us in the womb. Abortion is murder. He has asked her to share dialog. She has ignored him.
Discretion is the better part of valor. Some people seem to want the Pope himself to come out and excommunicate Pelosi. Not to worry - she has done so herself and digs deeper into the abyss each time she sacrilegiously receives the Eucharist. She's been told what not to do, so have the priests and lay people, but! This tells us of the level of rebelliousness, revolt and sheer evil defiance displayed by the tares in the Church. Fanning the flames of this would only encourage even more sacrilege from anti-Catholics and intruders besides.
Give the Holy Father and the Curia some credit for caution and for the wisdom of 2,000 years of Vatican diplomacy.
Don't expect them to provoke even more horrors being perpetrated at Mass.
"Her reception of the Eucharist is 'his problem, not mine,' she said this week."
She certainly got that wrong. It is her problem, and the archbishop took it up to try to protect her from her own actions.
It's too late on a Friday now for me to digging into this too deeply – and we might not even be able to get very far without seeing some actual documents – but re: "In principle, the archbishop could pursue some canonical consequence for priests in violation of his directive." But isn't this also potentially not true, if there's a legitimate recourse pending, and the effect of the original declaration is canonically suspended until it is resolved? (But it seems we don't have enough information to be certain, since Canon 1737 §3 seems to imply that suspension is sometimes automatic and sometimes discretionary, and at the very least we would need to see the decrees to confirm whether or not it was suspended in a discretionary manner, if not automatic.)
further, I'm kind of confused about what kind of act applying c. 915 actually is. There's a lot of procedural ambiguity here.
Also, "there's a legitimate recourse pending, and the effect of the original declaration is canonically suspended until it is resolved" would be a possible line of defense for those priests, but I think the archbishop could *pursue* some disciplinary measure ahead of that. right?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
“Questions.
Questions that need answering.”
On second thought, I suppose the correct answer has to be: If suspension is not automatic by the law (and I’m guessing that’s correct but would need to confirm), then the burden of proof is firmly on anyone who wants to argue for the suspension. Failing proof of that, the effect is not presumably suspended and the Bishop could totally enforce it.
It seems like there's some pretty obvious lacunas here. How were they not spotted before? Is this the first time a bishop has actually 915'd someone, or the first time that person has filed an appeal?
Denying her reception of Communion is an act of mercy for her soul.
She remains, obstinately, proud of her facilitation of abortion and erroneously believes that when her time of judgment comes, the Lord will look favorably on her “accomplishments”.
Pray for this poor woman. Because she has precious little time left…as do we all.
// Cordileone, for his part, was careful to document the gravity of her advocacy on abortion policy, and his repeated written warnings, exhortations, and invitations to pastoral dialogues. To the extent that t’s were crossed and i’s dotted, the archbishop made meticulous notes, which according to sources close to the dicastery, were forwarded directly to Rome.
All of that means that procedurally the dicastery is not likely in a position to overturn the case. //
But, then, this pope and his chums being who and what they are, the bishop can safely assume that the Catholic Church of 2024 regards the wrong school of American bishops as being of much less importance than the right school of American politicians.
Maybe this is like the time during Covid when asked about Abp Cordileone saying a one-person limit on Churches was insane she went on a long tirade about how the Archbishop should follow the science because she had received Communion in San Francisco safely because there were like twelve people there and everyone was spread out and distancing.
Then her staff later helpfully pointed out that she must have hallucinated the entire thing because she's been virtually attending Mass since the beginning of the Pandemic like the rest of the hoi polloi.
Really the best case scenario here for her soul is that she's lying.