Jesuits. Why Does it Always Have to be Jesuits?

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a Jesuit? May the Good Lord have mercy on His Church!

From One Mad Mom

Something you should know about me…I am always going to sneak in an Indiana Jones or Star Wars reference when I can. You’re welcome. Snakes might have been more appropriate but then you wouldn’t know I was talking about a Jesuit.

Cardinal Ladaria cautions U.S. bishops on politicians and Communion

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has urged the U.S. bishops to proceed with caution in their discussions about formulating a national policy “to address the situation of Catholics in public office who support legislation allowing abortion, euthanasia or other moral evils.”

Cardinal Luis Ladaria, congregation prefect, reiterated what he said he had told several groups of U.S. bishops during their 2019-2020 “ad limina” visits, namely that “the effective development of a policy in this area requires that dialogue occurs in two stages: first among the bishops themselves, and then between bishops and Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions.

Uh, who’s contradicting that? Actually, he seems to have a problem with the brother bishops getting together to discuss it at all. Archbishop Cordileone carefully pointed out in several articles that they can’t just go “off with their heads!” but that they have to have conversations with said pro-abortion politicians explaining their errors and to make sure they have full understanding of the gravity of their actions before anyone could act. Here’s one Q&A article where he states this: 

“Sometimes these conversations take place in private — people don’t know about it — and that arrangement can be made. That’s why it’s important that the conversations do take place, and if they become fruitless after repeated attempts, then that’s where a bishop is going to have to make a judgment as to what to do about it.”

and…

“The other aspect of this, Canon 915 — that they’re not to be admitted to Communion — that has happened in the recent history of our country, where bishops have declared that certain people, the ones I’m aware of are politicians, are not to be admitted to Communion — that’s different from excommunication.

Canon 915 is not a penalty: It’s a declaration of a fact, and, pastorally, it can only take place after these conversations. Canon law requires warnings before an excommunication, that the person be warned; and then if they don’t repent, be warned again. And there’s this whole process that has to be observed in order for it to be applied.”

You know who’s a canon lawyer? Archbishop Cordileone. You know who is not? Cardinal Ladaria. Cardinal Ladaria is just a lawyer, and that was from his pre-Jesuit years, so his response makes a lot of sense coming from a lawyer turned Jesuit.

Back to Ladaria’s letter…

In the letter to Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Ladaria also insisted: such a policy cannot usurp the authority of an individual bishop in his diocese on the matter; the policy would require near unanimity; and it would be “misleading” to present abortion and euthanasia as “the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest level of accountability on the part of Catholics.”

On the first part, do you know who said that first? Oh, yeah, still Archbishop Cordileone. More from the Q&A article above:

“In the end, the bishops have to respect each other’s decision in the matter because each bishop has to make that decision in accordance with his own conscience; and it’s to Almighty God that the bishop will have to render an account for the decision he made within the sanctuary of his conscience.”

So, counselor, you’re arguing against an argument not made.

As to your second point, again, you’re making an argument against an argument not made. “Pre-eminent” doesn’t mean exclusive. It simply means it has priority, and you might actually want to take it up with your boss, Cardinal Ladaria:

https://www.catholicsun.org/2020/01/27/pope-francis-has-our-backs-on-pro-life-cause-says-archbishop/

Archbishop Naumann said Pope Francis had told them, “If we do not defend life, no other rights matter.The Holy Father said that abortion is first a human rights issue.”

On with the Ladaria letter…

The letter, dated May 7 and obtained by Catholic News Service in Rome, said it was in response to a letter from Archbishop Gomez informing the doctrinal congregation that the bishops were preparing to address the situation of Catholic politicians and “the worthiness to receive holy Communion.”

Cardinal Ladaria warned that without the unanimity of the bishops, a national policy, “given its possibly contentious nature,” could “become a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger church in the United States.”

So unity is the “pre-eminent” issue?! Well, color me shocked. I thought just maybe it would be children being ripped apart in the womb, Cardinal. Honestly, do these prelates think for just a moment that they may be culpable for the death of many, many children because they spent more time worrying about happily getting along?

Let me help you out, Cardinal Ladaria. Truth, a moral right, nor Canon Law are dependent on unanimity or “near unanimity” as you state.

The cardinal also suggested the discussion “would best be framed within the broad context of worthiness for the reception of holy Communion on the part of all the faithful, rather than only one category of Catholics, reflecting their obligation to conform their lives to the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ as they prepare to receive the sacrament.”

And here comes the whataboutisms of which James Martin, SJ, and his ilk are so fond. Let’s look at the Canon Law which applies here and why we don’t include those with private sin in with public obstinate sinners who should be DENIED Communion. (emphasis mine)

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Let’s look at Canon 915. What does “and others obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin” mean? Manifest means it can be seen. Martin, SJ, and Ladaria, SJ, try to lump the two canons together ALL THE TIME. Can you see when someone is, say, watching porn? Using birth control? Has engaged in contracting a second marriage? Only if they let you in on that little fact. Most sins are private and known only to the people involved. They are not manifest. I’m certainly not shouting mine from the rooftops. But what of the pro-abortion politician who champions abortion PUBLICLY? Or maybe one who contracts a second marriage with no annulment of the first? Or any PUBLICLY announced sin? That’s when Canon 915 kicks in and they are “not to be admitted to holy communion.” That actually means BARRING them. And, as Archbishop Cordileone points out, there are steps to be taken canonically. The sinner has to be informed and instructed by their bishop. Bishops who are not doing this have God to answer to. What Canon 915 doesn’t mean is that the Nancy Pelosis of the world are free to just say “I reject the teaching of the Church and I can do what I want.” Zero to do with Canon 915.

Canon 916 deals with all of us private sinners who know we’re in grave sin. WE are the ones who have to hold ourselves accountable because our sin is not manifest (otherwise we’d revert back to 915). It involves personal accountability. James Martin, SJ, and Cardinal Ladaria, SJ, want you to think the responsibility of these two Canons falls on the individual. They do not. Only one does. They’re just trying to create an “A-ha!” scenario that doesn’t exist.

Given the importance of the issue, which goes beyond the boundaries of the United States, Cardinal Ladaria also said, “Every effort should be made to dialogue with other episcopal conferences as this policy is formulated in order both to learn from one another and to preserve unity in the universal church.”

Oh, yes. Let’s consult Germany! Puh-lease! Again, preserving unity in the teachings of the Church is very important. Preserving unity over evil is not. The dissenters are supposed to bend to the Truth, not the other way around.

The cardinal’s letter also mentioned a reference by Archbishop Gomez to a letter then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent in 2004 to then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington about Catholic politicians and Communion. The letter, Cardinal Ladaria said, was in “the form of a private communication” to the bishops and should be read only in the context of the formal 2002, “Doctrinal note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life.”

Ha-ha! This is the letter that keeps on sticking it to the liberals. It was never supposed to be made public but it was. Theodore McCarrick and then-Bishop Wilton Gregory tried to keep it under wraps and then simply lied about it. No shock there. If you want to know a bit of history on it, Barbara Kralis did a wonderful job on that. https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1123

Also worth a read is the piece Sandro Magister did where he published the private document and called out McCarrick for his big old lie on that one. 

Cardinal McCarrick, speaking to the bishops gathered in Denver, made himself the spokesman of the concern “that the sacred nature of the Eucharist might be turned into a partisan political battleground.” The real battles, he said, “should be fought not at the Communion rail, but in the public square, in hearts and minds, in our pulpits and public advocacy, in our consciences and communities.”

McCarrick also told the assembly that he had had from the Holy See professions of their trust in the responsibility of the American bishops: thus they may judge whether the refusal of communion is a “pastorally wise and prudent” decision. But there is no trace of any such professions in Ratzinger’s memorandum.

No trace?!? In fact, there’s a big old “must refuse Holy Communion” in there, but Teddy must have been too preoccupied with abusing seminarians to see that.

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). https://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7055%26eng%3dy.html

A tad bit different from McCarrick’s rendition to the USCCB. Let’s be honest. McCarrick would have been included in Canon 916. No way he should have been celebrating Mass or receiving Holy Communion.

When the U.S. bishops made their “ad limina” visits to the Vatican in 2004, Cardinal Ladaria said, “it was clear that there was a lack of agreement regarding the issue of Communion among the bishops.”

“At that time, the development of a national policy was not under consideration, and Cardinal Ratzinger offered general principles on the worthy reception of holy Communion in order to assist local ordinaries in the United States in their dealings with Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions,” he said.

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, AKA Pope Benedict XVI for the clueless, gave clear direction, but McCarrick and now-Cardinal Wilton Gregory kept it hidden until it was leaked to Magister. And, yes, there was a task force just for the purpose of a policy of dealing with John Kerry.

“Cardinal Ratzinger’s communication,” he said, “should thus be discussed only within the context of the authoritative doctrinal note which provides the teaching of the magisterium on the theological foundation for any initiative regarding the question of worthy reception of holy Communion.”

“Nothing to see here. Move along!” Oh, OK.

The 2002 note said, “Those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.”

The 2002 note did not, however, mention reception of the Eucharist.

They’re referring to this note, not Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter, by the way: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

This is all distraction, though. It’s like Redemptionis Sacramentum was never written.

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177]

What’s footnote 177, you may (or rather, should) ask? Canon 915!!!

Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 letter, which was never published by the Vatican, said, “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.”

“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,’” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, quoting from a declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts on the issue of Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

That emphasis was mine. Please note it didn’t say “may”, “could”, etc. It said MUST refuse. But that was the direction Theodore and Cardinal Wilton Gregory chose to hide from the USCCB.

Writing to Archbishop Gomez, Cardinal Ladaria said the U.S. bishops need an “extensive and serene dialogue” among themselves and between individual bishops and Catholic politicians in their dioceses who do not support the fullness of the church’s teaching to understand “the nature of their positions and their comprehension of Catholic teaching.”

As serene as a child being ripped apart?

Only after both dialogues, the cardinal said, the bishops’ conference “would face the difficult task of discerning the best way forward for the church in the United States to witness to the grave moral responsibility of Catholic public officials to protect human life at all stages.”

We’ve had more than enough dialogue as our most helpless are killed over a million times a year and the Eucharist is desecrated consistently.

“If it is then decided to formulate a national policy on worthiness for Communion, such a statement would need to express a true consensus of the bishops on the matter, while observing the prerequisite that any provisions of the conference in this area would respect the rights of individual ordinaries in their dioceses and the prerogatives of the Holy See,” the cardinal said, citing St. John Paul II’s 1998 document on bishops’ conferences.

Cardinal Ladaria specifically pointed to paragraphs 22 of the document, “Apostolos Suos,” which says bishops’ conferences may publish doctrinal declarations when they are “approved unanimously,” but “a majority alone” is not enough for publication without the approval of the Vatican.”

Two things to note in this last statement. It doesn’t have to be unanimous or near unanimous as the Cardinal stated before. It just has to be unanimous or approved, so CARRY ON, MEN! If the Vatican is going to punt, at least that won’t be on your hands. On the other hand, if you do nothing, even with the Cardinal’s overt threat of punting it, that will be on you.

He also cited paragraph 24, which says the bishops’ conference cannot hinder an individual bishop’s authority in his diocese “by substituting themselves inappropriately for him, where the canonical legislation does not provide for a limitation of his episcopal power in favor of the episcopal conference.”

Yeah, yeah, we know. Again, that will be on Cardinals Gregory, Tobin, Cupich, Bishop McElroy, and all the other weak and/or evil men who have aided and abetted the killing of children. The rest of you who care about YOUR souls, as well as the souls of those in your charge, had better start rallying behind those trying to protect the Eucharist and defend life, or you might just have hell to pay.

Many thanks to Archbishop Cordileone and all of the bishops who have put out letters of support. May your efforts to protect the Eucharist and lives be rewarded.