Bishop Paul Coakley of Salina: Denying Communion to Obstinate Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians "in many cases becomes the right decision and the only choice"

Bishop Paul Coakley of Salina, in an interview with LifeSite News, has indicated that, in many cases, denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians is "the right decision and the only choice".

Here's the story: Bishop: Denying Communion to Obstinate Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians "in many cases becomes the right decision and the only choice"

Here is the relevant section of the interview:

LifeSiteNews: Here is a tough question. One of the prominent issues as far as Catholics are concerned – both in Canada and the US - it seems worse in Canada – is Catholic politicians promoting and implementing expanded abortion rights and funding and also the redefinition of marriage. So far they don’t feel there is anything wrong with that because there haven't been any significant sanctions for their obstinate, public behavior, even after having been advised by their religious leaders and their parish pastor that this is wrong. Should more be done about this?

Bishop: That is a difficult, challenging question. I think you are right. It is a scandal that so many Catholic politicians who have such power to influence our nation for the good are not accepting that responsibility that comes with that power and acting upon it.

Sadly, as you observed, many of our Catholic politicians have been in the forefront in fostering so-called abortion rights. I think many of the bishops are taking this very seriously and working, as we must, to meet privately and work toward educating, informing those individuals and helping them to recognize the consequences of their actions and what that is going to mean for, well, primarily their spiritual well-being, the salvation of their souls but also in terms of their being in full communion with the Church.

Each bishop finds himself in a very challenging position and I certainly would never dare to sit in judgment on any of my brother bishops. I have my own problems in my own backyard but I think we are really trying to take this matter very seriously because it does become a source of scandal.

LifeSiteNews: A few bishops – one in Canada and a few in the US – have said that it has come to a point now where they would deny them Communion because of the severity of the situation and how it hasn’t gotten any better – in fact it seems to have become worse. Also Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was cardinal just prior to becoming pope, did make a very definitive statement that, in such cases where it is obstinate and persistent… they must be denied Communion. What is your response to that?

Bishop: I agree. I think, one has to determine yet at what point it can be determined that they have come to that state of obstinate refusal to desist from that condition of manifest, grave sin. I think we have an obligation as bishops, as pastors, to try to work with them to bring them to a change of heart and refusing them Communion would be, not the first, but more than likely, the last stage in a serious of steps.

LifeSiteNews: So, it is not something that you would rule out?

Bishop: Oh, absolutely not. I think it is something that Canon Law sanctions and that I think many bishops find themselves with no other choice but to make that decision. I think in many cases it becomes the right decision and the only choice.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Scott]

I think it's a little sad when the big news is that a bishop is agreeing with the Pope (or the pre-Pope).

Unfortunately, my bishop doesn't have the juevos this one does. I should be better about praying for him...

scott

[Qualis Rex]

Scott, I was about to applaud the Bishop's statement. Then I read yours...and see your point.

*sigh*

[David]

Why the last resort? Are we saying that only when everything else fails, then we should step in and stop the desecration of the Eucharist? Is this the same standard we hold in other circumstances? By this logic we ought to let anyone receive the Eucharist until they adamantly refuse to become Catholic. As long as they say they want to be Catholic or they might want to be Catholic, then we ought to let them receive. Refusing the Eucharist is only a “last resort”. I find it very interesting that the Blessed Sacrament and the salvation of one’s soul is the last consideration for our bishops.

[average]

Bishop Coakley says:

"I have problems in my own back yard but I think we are trying to take this matter very seriously because it is a great source of scandal".

Where's the scandal coming from Father?

The scandal isn't coming from the middle or even right of the middle nor the left.

The source of the scandal comes from trouble makers on the edge--and almost exclusively from far-right zealots who are now wallowing, as it happens, in myriad of scandals all their own.

If the Catholic Church in the United States gets ripped in two then we can all turn our glances toward those who caused it.

Was it coming from Catholics who could think for themselves or from those on the edge who's idea of the sanctity of human life was meant to have greater importance as applied to a fetus than as applied to an adult?

Was it coming from tolerant Catholics who were willing to accept that gays are humans too or, from those on the edge who's ultimate desire would be to entirely remove gay people from society?

Would the destruction of the church originate with Catholics who are open to fresh dialog on married Priests or women Priests or from those on the edge who would purge away people whose opinions are diverse from their own?

Any threat to the Catholic church is coming not from thoughtful mainstream Catholics--it is coming from a minority of dysfunctional extremists.

The holy fathers know this and that is why the Catholic church is still the Catholic church and not the Right-to-Lifer's Church.

If you want a Right-to-Lifer's Church where you can deny communion who anyone on your list that you don't care for, you might want to consider starting up your own movement in another country--say, Guyana.

average

[Thomistic]

"Average" has been posting from the same IP address using the following identities:

average
DJ
Barry J. Estill
TheTruthHurts
Peter
dymphna
Long-Skirts
Clint
Cordelia
noneed4greed
Mr. Kurt D. Collins, Jr. (Organist, Christ Episcopal Church)
Sam Garner
Brian
Tom
Michael
Lee Strong
A Simple Sinner
Javier Ramirez
Vince

Sometimes from these various assumed personalities are 100% orthodox, and sometimes the posts from these various assumed personalities are heretical, like those here. Sometimes the posts have taken opposite positions on the same issue.

Moreover, this is only one of a few IP addresses the person claiming to be average has been using.

What does that tell us?

Average is a troll. He assumes various identities and seeks to stir up trouble with the things he posts. Because his posts are both orthodox and heretical, depending on the personality he is assuming (and sometimes taking the exact opposite stance on the same issue) we can recognize that average has no discernable opinion on the matters about which he posts.

He doesn't care about what he's saying, he simply enjoys reading the reactions (positive or negative) to what he says.

I'm not sure what it says about a person's personality that they have that kind of time on their hands or that deep a need for a very weird sort of attention, but whatever it says, it may be said about this poor, sad person.

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

Here is more information on the subject:

Troll (Internet)

Baiting (Internet)

On the Internet, baiting is similar to trolling, in that baiters, like trolls, try to elicit a response from other users. The difference is that the response is supposed to be embarrassing to the user in question, and humorous to others. Baiters frequently concentrate on groups they do not like. What the baiter says does not need to make sense, it is often simply written to baffle the bait, and to produce an interesting result.

In that respect, baiting is similar to telephone prank calls, but often much more elaborate. In the United States, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 makes some prank calls a felony with penalties of up to two years in prison, and possible fines (depending on severity). However, such penalties are rarely carried out. Like prank calls, Baiting is illegal in most jurisdictions as it is a form of targeted abuse or harassment.

Flamebait

Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in. (This is not to be confused with tweaking someone.)
There are various motives or explanations for this behavior. The most popular is the desire for attention and the desire for entertainment at the expense of others. Posted flamebait can provide the posting party with a controlled trigger-and-response setting in which to engage in conflicts and indulge aggressive behavior anonymously, without facing the consequences those behaviors would certainly bring to bear in real life. In other instances, flamebait may be used to reduce a forum's use by angering forum users.

Pax,

Thomistic

[average]

Thomistic,

Where do you get all this IP address non-sense?

Why would you wish to pull Vince or Tom or Brian or The Truth Hurts commenters into thinking they were one person?

I don't know who these people are.

Why do you do this? It's pretty low life.

And, this again validates what I've said before about not your not being able to sustain thoughtful discussion.

I'm sorry for you and I pray now (and I will pray tomorrow at Mass) that you may sometime see fit not to orchestrate blatant lying attacks on readers and commenters to desire to add their views to the others within this blog.

I couldn't think of all those names, nor would I.

Your a very hateful person Thomistic.

average

[joanne]

I think Avg's post, taken at face value, actually proves the negative effect of allowing publicly dissenting Catholics to receive Communion.

[average]

Joanne,

It would based on this blog, for sure.

Thankfully, the Catholic church doesn't base its decisions on denying communion for people with diverse opinions as they appear on this site.

If it did, my guess is that ninety per-cent of parishoners in America would be forced to remain seated in their pews during that Liturgy.

You'd still get the wafer though I'm sure, so no real worries there.

average

[Patrick]

Joanne,

Now we know why so many people were having trouble with grammar and spelling. ;o)

[David]

The more angry gets the worse his spelling and grammar.

[TheTruthHurts]

Thomastic:
I have never posted as "Average" or as any name other than the one below. Your Flamers & Trolls List comes across as a feeble attempt to make it appear that there's only one person out here (posting under multiple handles) who has the audacity to find some of the holier-than-thou tripe posted here offensive. While I'm hardly surprised that you're "taking names", I am truly shocked that such a "Faithful" Catholic as yourself would have so little regard for the truth. Then again . . .

[TheTruthHurts]

Patrick (the Spelling & Grammar Cop):
THE MORE ANGRY GETS . . .???

LOL.

[Thomistic]

TheTruthHurts has posted using the following identities from the IP address attached to his last two posts above:

Ferdinand Gajewski
Mike Campbell
average
averageamericancatholic
Barry J. Estill
Clint

This person, whoever he is posts on a number of blogs, not just this one, using these identities and the others I listed before, and (I suspect) still others I listed long ago.

As to what this person really believes, anyone can guess. He (or she) has been known to take opposite sides of the same issues with different identities and reply to his own posts with different identities.

He's just messing with people. I guess he's bored and unfulfilled. Ignoring him is a good idea until Maximus reads my e-mails asking him to block all the IP addresses he's using.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Mike Campbell]

Dear Mr. Thomistic,
I only discovered your blog this past week during a search for discussions about our archbishop's feckless recent behavior regarding the Pelosi problem. I thought I had found a few like-minded, orthodox-leaning Catholics here.
I wrote my first and only comment until now on Jan. 30, but this morning was appalled to learn that you think my name is one of various aliases used by the same individual, TheTruthHurts, to post baiting messages on your site.
A tekkie you are not sir, nor am I, but I do know that many different people can have the same IP (internet provider) address. Sharing a common internet provider cannot be a basis for you to jump to the conclusion that only one person is posting to your site from that address.
I suggest you upgrade your technical knowledge before you begin grouping all of us into one rotten batch.
Regards,
Mike Campbell

[Thomistic]

The quote below is from the Wikipedia entry for: IP address

An IP address (Internet Protocol address) is a unique address that devices use in order to identify and communicate with each other on a computer network utilizing the Internet Protocol standard (IP)—in simpler terms, a computer address. Any participating network device—including routers, computers, time-servers, printers, Internet fax machines, and some telephones—can have their own unique address. Also, many people can find personal information through IP addresses.

An IP address can also be thought of as the equivalent of a street address or a phone number (compare: VoIP (voice over (the) internet protocol)) for a computer or other network device on the Internet. Just as each street address and phone number uniquely identifies a building or telephone, an IP address can uniquely identify a specific computer or other network device on a network.

An IP address can appear to be shared by multiple client devices either because they are part of a shared hosting web server environment or because a proxy server (e.g., an ISP or anonymizer service) acts as an intermediary agent on behalf of its customers, in which case the real originating IP addresses might be hidden from the server receiving a request. The analogy to telephone systems would be the use of predial numbers (proxy) and extensions (shared).

IP addresses are managed and created by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. IANA generally allocates super-blocks to Regional Internet Registries, who in turn allocate smaller blocks to Internet service providers and enterprises.

IP header size is 20 bytes.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Thomistic]

Loves Me Like A Rock Lyrics
by Paul Simon

When I was a little boy
And the Devil would call my name
I'd say "now who do ...
Who do you think you're fooling?"
I'm a consecrated boy
Singer in a Sunday choir
My mama loves, she loves me
She gets down on her knees and hugs me
She loves me like a rock
She rocks me like the rock of ages
And she loves me

When I was grown to be a man
And the Devil would call my name
I'd say "now who do . ..
Who do you think you're fooling?"
I'm a consummated man
I can snatch a little purity
My mama loves me, she loves me
She gets down on her knees and hugs me
She loves me like a rock
She rocks me like the rock of ages
And she loves me

If I was President
And the Congress call my name
I'd say "who do ...
Who do you think you're fooling?"
I've got the Presidential Seal
I'm up on the Presidential Podium
My mama loves me
She loves me
She gets down on her knees and hugs me
And she loves me like a rock
She rocks me like the rock of ages
And she loves me
She loves me, loves me, loves me, loves me.

[Mike Campbell]

Dear Thomistic,
Thanks for kindly definining what an IP address is; please accept my apology for my ignorance in this regard.
Since an IP adress, then, is a discrete address for a single computer, somehow, according to your previous statement, Ferdinand Gajewski, average, averageamericancatholic, Barry J. Estill and
Clint have all managed to sneak into my house
and send messages to your site without my knowledge! Either that or my wife and cats have been up to no good behind my back!
This site is becoming more interesting by the day. Keep up the nonsense, perhaps that's the best strategy for attracting new viewers in this insane day and age.
Regards,
Mike Campbell

[Patrick]

You can't trust cats.

[joanne]

Does it really matter who is posting and by what name? I'd take the person at their "signature" --if someone is posting "in disguise" wouldn't that be their problem? Suspicion and name-calling both seem to get in the way of honest discussion.

[joanne]

Oh, yeah, in case it matters, i've posted here by my email address by MISTAKE, a few times. Sorry if that caused confusion to anyone.

[A Simple Sinner]

Thomistic,

I was googling for one of my old posts that I had not saved to use the data in another forum I participate in when I came accross this article.

More specifically -

"Average" has been posting from the same IP address using the following identities:

average
DJ
Barry J. Estill
TheTruthHurts
Peter
dymphna
Long-Skirts
Clint
Cordelia
noneed4greed
Mr. Kurt D. Collins, Jr. (Organist, Christ Episcopal Church)
Sam Garner
Brian
Tom
Michael
Lee Strong
A Simple Sinner
Javier Ramirez
Vince

Sometimes from these various assumed personalities are 100% orthodox, and sometimes the posts from these various assumed personalities are heretical, like those here. Sometimes the posts have taken opposite positions on the same issue.

If you could kindly take a moment to note the IP originating from this post and compare it to the other identities, I would like to make it clear that there has been a case of STOLEN identity.

I write exclusively from this computer, and should you find a post originating from another IP address by "A Simple Sinner" It is decidedly NOT me.

I have no doubt you are correct when you write: Sometimes from these various assumed personalities are 100% orthodox... because Average is in fact STEALING my screen name which I use in multiple forums.

I am decidedly NOT the same person as noneed4greed, Mr. Kurt D. Collins, Jr. (Organist, Christ Episcopal Church)or Clint.

(On the last one - Clint - not that it was so memorable I would expect anyone to remember, but if you could look at our exchange in December:
http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2006/12/cardinal_claudi.html

and compare my IP there versus here, and then against Clints, you will find them to be different.

(Ironically, I was looking for that post on the PNCC when I found this post for the first time.)

Shame on him for doing that.

Shame on me for NOT logging in with a TypePad account. Lesson learned.

[RMG]

I am uncertain as to why I would even take the liberty to entertain this discussion, however I feel both compelled and obligated as a Roman Catholic of the Diocese of Salina to defend my bishop--Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley.

In response first to this "average" fellow... it brings to my attention how you referred to a bishop, that is a decedent of the original apostles of Christ through the Church tradition of "laying of hands", as a "father". Upon appointment from Rome and ordination of Bishop, that man has attained the completion of the vocation of the holy orders. This, of course, is known to all Catholics; and, as of which, you would not refer to a bishop as a "father". Thus, in my mind it calls suspicion to what you claim as your affiliation and association with the Catholic body of Christ.

Secondly, and now to the issue at hand, this is a directive that originates from the teachings of the Catholic Church: if anyone was to be in opposition to the teachings of the Church, then he has committed a grave offense against the Body of Christ. To commit any offense against the Body of Christ both minor and grave inflicts injury upon to that body where then the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is called upon in order to heal that body. Failing to do so, and continuing to remain in that offense, prohibits that person from receiving the Eucharist in holy communion.

The "scandal" is not any of the sort that is residing within the Catholic Church. What Bishop Coakley is speaking of to "scandal" is in reference to that these Catholic leaders know fully the position of the Catholic Church along with her teachings. What is "scandalous" is the notion that they are neglecting or remaining intentionally ignorant to these teachings (which Canon Law defines this as to being acedia) believing that their public, political, civil position makes them exempted or immune to the teachings and laws of the Church. In doing so, they are teaching or making example of their actions to other laity in concepts and in practices that are wrong and not in union with the Church. Being that they are leaders and in a public office, they are charged with the special responsibility to ensure that what they do is done in union with the Church laying an example to other laity of proper conduct of being a member of the body of Christ. The "scandal" is in the notion that they are not doing so, and that they are willfully making these choices.

Which leads me into the next area of discussion. The Church does not want to ever deny someone to receive any of the Sacraments including but not limited to Holy Communion. It may be a lack of understanding the teachings of the Church that these politicians are making the decisions that they are making. Before denying them the receiving of the Sacraments and the holy Eucharist, the Church then reveals to them their errors. If the Church firmly states its position and teachings upon the matter and the person continues to remain in defiance to the Church, then no other choice is given except for the denial of the Sacraments. The reason for this, as I have already mentioned, is because their defiance is of a grave sin causing injury to the body of Christ; and so as long as one continues to remain in union with that injury, then they are not in union with that body.

In conclusion, it is a good thing to ask questions for if we did not ask questions and have discussions then we would be unable to come further into union with the body of Christ--that is, the Church. I must stress, however, that we must exercise great caution in the manner what we ask these questions and enter into these discussions. We must ask these questions and enter into these discussions in such a way that we are not rejecting the teachings of the Catholic Church. If we are not asking these questions with the strictest intention of gaining enlightenment, then we are faced with the real threat of schism--that is, "the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subjected to him". Or, in simple terms, denying the Church authority. To cut right to the chase, it is by Papal suggestion that these politicians be denied Holy Communion as long as they advocate teachings that are contrary to the Catholic Church. To be in opposition to that runs the threat of schism which would lead to separation from the body of Christ.

I said my peace and will say no more upon this matter. May the peace of the Lord be with you.