Italian Cardinal Bagnasco gives Communion to Marxist trans activists
(06-08-2013, 01:11 AM)St. Drogo Wrote:
(06-08-2013, 12:28 AM)Miles Christi Wrote: isnt this Luxuria man kind of well known in that part of the world?
No, never heard of him nor has anyone I know. Yet another thread unjustly libeling a doctrinally sound Catholic prelate. Brilliant!

Forget Luxuria; whose body was the Card putting in the ground? Who was he calling a Good Samaritan?

Quote:We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.
(06-08-2013, 01:11 AM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: while V2 seems a Latin version of Finnegan's Wake,


You are on a heck of a roll, Cecelia! 
(06-07-2013, 05:34 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote: What basis would he have had in Canon law for denying them communion - I doubt that you can find one.

From the 1917 code, canon 855 forbids giving communion to those excommunicated, laboring under interdict, and those publicly unworthy (publice indigni). Members of groups who gather in the name of publicly supporting open, unnatural vice fall at least under the latter category. A member of the group "The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," for example, would, especially while identifying themselves as part of the group, be considered publicly unworthy.

Quote:So thanks, Vatican 2, for removing Papal powers! 

No Council has stronger statements regarding the Pope's supreme authority of the Church than Vatican II. Go read the documents.
This doesn't add up or make sense. Bagnasco was the cardinal who was mailed a bullet (s) by the gay mafia.
(06-08-2013, 01:18 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:
Quote:So thanks, Vatican 2, for removing Papal powers! 

No Council has stronger statements regarding the Pope's supreme authority of the Church than Vatican II. Go read the documents.

Ditto with the Code of '83.
This situation we're seeing with Bagnasco is becoming an increasingly common trend, isn't it? And it is a disturbing one for the faithful. Leaders who we have counted on, trusted, to protect orthodoxy are beginning to show us their true sides. They are duplicitous, and ultimately more interested in their own advantage vs. the fidelity of the faith.  I remember how how uneasy I was about Fr. Corapi. He looked like a man who sinned but truly reformed. As it turned out, we never really knew him.

I won't debate the veracity of the Riverfront Times scandal rag about Burke's approval of the FSJ nuns order in the 1990s. He accepted vows from a transgendered nun, and then suppressed the order in 2003, probably in reaction to the scandal.  I don't suppose we will ever know the whole truth of what happened with Burke there. But still, something smells "fishy" to me. Riverfront wouldn't have had any story to publish if something had not happened in the first place. Furthermore, the massive cover up of pedophile scandals in Lacrosse under Burke's reign gives me pause; particularly, his neglect in due diligence with abuse victims. This follows a pattern we are seeing in other archdioceses and all over the world. The Eureka source I've linked to may be even less honest than Wikipedia, but other sources also point to the same problems at LaCrosse. They can't all be wrong about abuse cover up. This sums up the state of ruin in Lacrosse, and it doesn't appear to be getting better. I won't digress into Burke's questionable dealings with St. Stanislaus. Suffice it to say, I've read articles for both opinion sides. All I'm saying is that something doesn't add up with Burke either.
  Is it OK to say I wanted either Burke or Arinze? :blush:
(06-08-2013, 12:10 AM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 11:19 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 11:14 PM)GGG Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 10:24 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 06:15 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 05:34 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote: What basis would he have had in Canon law for denying them communion - I doubt that you can find one.

Canon 915

Canon 915 says: "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"

The people in question in this case were clearly not excommunicated or under interdict. The only cause for denying them communion then would be "obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin." How is the Cardinal supposed to evaluate every potential communicate to see if the fall under this. He doesn't know the personal history or actions of each one, nor does he know the state of their soul/ relationship to the Church.

Numerous canonists have tackled this subject before and concluded that if someone presents themselves for communion it must be given to them, unless they are excommunicated or under interdict.

"Mr. Luxuria (right), a known and avowed homosexual, received Holy Communion from the hands of a Cardinal at the Funeral Mass of Father Andrea Gallo."

"The event took place on May 25, at the Carmel Church in Genoa, during the funeral Mass for Father Andrea Gallo, officiated by Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco. After giving Holy Communion to Mr. Wladimiro Guadagno, alias Vladimir Luxuria, the same prelate gave Communion to another transvestite, ‘Regina’ Satariano a “transgender” activist.[1]"

Wouldn't this qualify as "obstinatley persevering in manifest grave sin"?   Honest question.

It probably does - the point though that the Canonists have raised is since this is a vague criteria (and knowledge of the individuals sin may not be widely known,) a formal interdict or excommunication is probably required in most circumstances. Do we know that the Cardinal was aware who Mr. Luxuria was?

Bold is the million dollar question. If unknown, Canon 915 applies but is unenforceable as there must be knowledge on the part of the cleric who is distributing Holy Communion to those that present themselves. Kinda like oh... a cop pulling someone over who just committed triple homicide but lets them go for a tail light because they don't know the perp just offed three people. If the cop knew, he's bound to enforce the law and arrest for the crime.

The individual in question is undoubtedly in obstinate manifestation of grave sin due to their views, lifestyle, etc. So, if Bagnasco knew, I would not want to be him. If he didn't know, it's still horrific but he has no culpability being without knowledge. 

Honestly, the whole "did he know?"  reminds me of the argument in favor of "invincible ignorance".  How do most folks really get away with pleading invincible ignorance about the Catholic Church?  Likewise, how many Cardinals can really get away with pleading ignorance about folks like these?  If they don't know, they should know and they should make a point of knowing.....AND ACTING.

(06-08-2013, 01:11 AM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: Can we really imagine that Bagnasco didn't know Gallo and his pro-abortion, pro-gay, and (most importantly) anti-Church crew? Really? Nah. LBR: Gallo was notorious, the "ceremony" filled with cross-dressers chanting pro-abortion crap; Gallo was in trouble (with laity), notorious for blaspheming the Holy Mother. The Card put a son of perdition in the ground and called him "a good Samaritan." HE KNEW GALLO. He knew Gallo's crew.  Well. Hopefully not that well; I've seriously had my fill of practicing bisexual cardinals. #O'Brien.

When trying to find the Bp. Sheen quote about the laity saving the Church, I ran upon this most interesting page: The Worst Scandal of All. That's my evening's reading, I'm afraid, but here's the Sheen quote (shortened; there was more, but now I'm reading this other page ):

Bp. Sheen Wrote:It is the laity that will save the Church.

And indeed, when the powers were dispersed in V2 (and didn't Bp. Sheen tell us to READ V2; to KNOW it? Maybe not; all before my time), they weren't dispersed merely to the mystical, non-existent "College of Bishops" which can trump the Pope somehow (it makes no sense; forget the fallen bishops, they're useless as teats on a boar hog). Someone called that a prophecy. I think it MUST be.

Because the bishops aren't even HIDING now. The question is, how does a pawn knock over a Bishop [chess]?

Also reading The Ratzinger Report again; it is CLEAR AS DAY that Ratzinger changed his tune, not about his hopes for V2, but about the fruits of V2. (I'm on the chapter where he's making HIDEOUS FUN of "priests" who do confessions as a park walk with their layperson like they're BFFs :LOL: Papa has a GREAT sense of humor, btw.) My theory is Papa B and the "God-fearing" V2 fathers bought us some time, and while V2 seems a Latin version of Finnegan's Wake, it may just be the way we (ooops, GOD!) hangs the depraved bishops. —Ah: our King is +Jesus; our Queen is the Holy Mother... we've just got to, um, figure out who our Knights and Bishops are, who the Satanic counterparts are, and help our guys (the good ones) checkmate Satan! :thumb:

(Too much chess today; rainy day; sorry :LOL: )

OMG YOU CRACK ME UP.  I see that sometimes you go overboard but you have me ROFL and I hope you never leave.

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)