Peters v. Cuomo

This Peters fellow is a layman and has no standing or authority to order the Bishop to do anything. Also, in the wake of the clerical sexual abuse of minors scandal, is this a fight that the hierarchy really wants to take on?
The Bishop may privately counsel Cuomo, and it is none of Peter's business what the Bishop says or does with Cuomo.

I find it amusing to see so many right wing laymen presuming to correct Bishops for not being tough enough, etc, as if the Bishops should be excommunicating anyone and everyone whom the right wing laymen do not like.

Until this Peters fellow can walk across the Hudson River and turn water into wine, he best keep his moralizing to himself.

More important than Cuomo (who can be voted out) is what this means for Roman Catholic priests who say public Masses and, like Cuomo, are not married to their girlfriends. The validity of the Sacrament doesn't depend on the morality of the priest administering it, but, according to Peters's argument, after Consecrating the bread and wine, the priest must not consume them. Surprise liturgical change or will a modern "privilege of clergy" prevail?

What? I thought that Sandra Lee was Andrew Cuomo's cook.

Or perhaps the real scandal is that Peters has pointed out that, once again, Church officials are all too willing to coddle and ingratiate themselves to those in power. Once again, there is a double standard--one for celebrity Catholics and one for everyone else. Joe and Jane aren't supposed to fornicate with their significant others, but Andy Cuomo--come and get your Host!

I'd eat my hat and yours if Hubbard has *ever* counselled a prominent Catholic on his or her moral irregularities. I eagerly await the bishop's response to Newt Gingrich's arrival in Albany.

What if Gov. Cuomo and the woman in question were living as brother and sister? Talk about casting stones ........

Thanks for sharing an often-overlooked factor in the relationship between law of the church and its proper exercise. Many Christians also confuse Roman Law as it structures the Code of Canons in the Western Church with our own US constitutional/common law. Very different structures and uses. As my Canon Law professor, the renowned Fr. James Corriden, has said time and again: The Code of Canon Law is NOT an answer book, but a theological document. It should not be used as US civil law is generally used, that is largely prescriptive. Anyway, interesting thoughts here in your post. So much more to be said on this matter.

For another take on the situation, check out my post from this morning: http://datinggod.org/2011/02/25/the-eucharist-is-not-a-weapon-part-i/

Peace and good.

Dear Michael,

Two things come to mind.

First, while one *can* approach the canons in an overly-legalistic fashion, the proper approach isn't to treat them as little more that guidelines or a tool of last resort. The ones that call for obedience are to be obeyed.

Second, in the whole discussion/disagreement/argument over the application of canon 915, I don't hear those who favor as more "lenient" approach addressing the problem of scandal. I agree with you that a public rebuke of Gov. Cuomo may not draw him closer to the Church, but that's not necessarily what concerns those who think he ought to be denied Communion: it can also be the scandal caused by someone who is very publicly engaged in sinful behavior and still receives Communion.

Thoughts?

Chris

Hi Mr. Winters. Your column warranted a reply, but mine became too long for a normal combox-style post. I lack your gift for pith. Anyway, my thoughts are available at my website, http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/michael-sean-winters-column-pet.... Sincerely, Ed Peters

I really enjoyed Mr. Winters coverage of Peters vs Cuomo ,especially his reference to Peters " public " statements. When I read about Peters comments in my local newspaper I thought Peters had at his disposal something that the rest of us do not have and that would be a camera in Gov Cuomos bedroomn.

JEM

Its a very simple proposition, and complex only if one wants to rationalize Church teaching ... should a person "living in sin" be coming to the communion rail each week. Even a child knows the answer to this question although as he/she grows into adulthood they may well try to rationalize their answer as this article clearly attempts to do on behalf of Governor Cuomo. The problem with this "sophisticated" approach to Catholic teaching is that save, for overt and public mass murder ala Gadaffi, there does not seem to be any valid reason to restrict Communion. As a result of this flawed trend for the last 40 years "Catholic" politicians have enacted legislation
Contrary to church teaching in every way ( think abortion legislation for starters ) during the week and then jostle for position in the Communion lines on Sunday especially if the press was around. The party continues today because not enough Bishops have the courage to say and do something.

The bottom line is that the law is the law. And Governor Cuomo is breaking Church law and causing a public scandal. And Bishop Hubbard by doing nothing to stop a public scandal is hurting the Church and gravely offending God by allowing Governor Cuomo to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ unworthily. Bishop Hubbard should be removed from office immediately and possible excommunicated for gross negligence and for not possessing the Catholic Faith.

This is a very strange piece of writing for one who places himself in a position of pretending to uphold Church teaching.
Bishops are to follow the laws of the Church which have the good of souls as their primary purpose.
Those who are living in grave sin are to seek forgiveness and promise and try not to so so again.
Public sinners give grave scandal to the church when they hold themselves to be Catholic but live a life-style that is contrary to Church teaching.
Bishops have an obligation to admonish public sinners and to withhold the sacraments from them unless and until they publicly repent for their public sin.
Peters is spot on.
Winters is in need of a refresher course in canon law.
The bishop? Recall would be a possibility from thr Vatican.

Read Dr. Peters response here: http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/michael-sean-winters-column-pet...

A church that allows its teachings to be publicly flouted by people who represent themselves as its members in good standing will become a laughingstock.There is no way the RC Church can retain credibility if it never publicly rebukes those who actively oppose its goals or denounce its doctrines in the public square.

Thank you, Mr. Winters for a well-articulated analysis of "Peters v. Cuomo". I believe it was our current Holy Father, Benedict, who opined that moral relativism is the great evil the Church faces. I had never fully understood the term. But thanks to your thoughtful summation, that concept is now crystal clear in my mind.

I wish you every success in your efforts to continue to propagate the very philosophy that the Pope has warned about.

Think about it. The number of ill-formed consciences that you can further influence is endless! What a spectacular opportunity from your standpoint.

Joan McCullough

Dear Mr. Winters,

You write, "Recourse to the canons of the Church are not just a last resort, they are an admission of failure."

Is this true even for those canons which embody divine law?

If so, are we failed by having recourse to divine law?

You said 'the canons are intended, "for the good of souls."'.

Holy Communion is no good to someone living in sin. It's only a mortal sin of sacrilege. Which is only a bad thing.

Sorry, but you defeat yourself with your own rhetoric on that one.

Anyway, you asked several questions:

Can he imagine, and admit, that the bishop might, for all anyone knows, be discussing the governor's living situation and encouraging him to regularize it?

That is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is whether or not an authorized Catholic priest should have administered the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to a man openly living in sin. Now it may be argued that giving Communion to someone openly living in sin is "encouraging him to regularize his living situation", but again, the matter at hand is the Communion Cuomo received, and the sacrilege.

Can he conceive that such a discussion might be moving in the right direction but could be easily sabotaged were the bishop to adopt the posture Peters recommends?

Are you suggesting that such a discussion might really be moving in the right direction? If so, explain to me how encouraging a man living openly in sin to continue said lifestyle is at all moving in the right direction.

Does Peters think that such a public rebuke would help Governor Cuomo to draw closer to the Church?

Do you think that encouraging Cuomo to "regularize his living situation" will draw him closer to the Church?

I like so much of what you write, on many subjects, but your thinking, at times seems to miss the mark!
Pope John Paul the Second, I think, prefaced the 1983 (?)Code of Canon Law with a statement saying it was the last document to come out of the Second Vatican Council. And as recently as January 2011, in addressing the Officials, and staff, of the Roman Rota, said, in effect, in relation to marriage, for example, the Pastoral and Legal aspects were two sides of the same coin. The Law helps to inform and guide the conscience of those seeking to validly enter into the Sacrament of Marriage. To provide one aspect of
Church teaching and care, and not the other, is to do a disservice to those who seek help and shelter in the Church. I have no reason to believe the Pope
would not apply this teaching/thinking to all aspects of Canon Law.
Canon Law can surely,then,be understood as the equivalent of a Safety Belt in a Car - it is there not to restrict, but to protect us from harm and, thus,enabling us to complete the journey - which is for us a pilgrimage through this life to that place,and time, when, by God's grace, we see God face to face.
I do not know if you have children but I assume you, out of love, would want them to observe any law, and teaching, that is for their good because you love them, and that you would not fail to teach them something because you believe resort to such law and teaching is a sign of failure! (I don't have children, and I am not a Canon Lawyer but I have seen what happens when any law is disregarded out of a misguided sense of love/compassion.)
Please don't cherry pick the fruits of the Council you quote, or use, so effectively, in other circumstances!

Cohabitation is not a canonical problem. It is a moral one. Taking the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of God when not properly disposed to do so is also a problem. Causing public scandal does become a canonical problem (I'm not a lawyer of any type so don't send the dogs out) that Bishop Hubbard will either resolve, or as we've seen with so many of his brother bishops turn a blind eye. Let's pray that either Mr. Cuomo or Bp. Hubbard will do the right thing.
Pax Christi,
Maria

Peters always writes well about interesting topics, and truly he often finds those interesting things that he has measured against canon law as wanting in noticeable measure. In his analysis about what Bishop Hubbard should do or not do Peters appears (at least to me, just an average newspaper reader)to use both the catechism and canon law as normative for the full life of the church. On the whole, like any manual, or guides, these two compilations do not intend to capture the fullness of catholicity, nor are they intended to be its limits. Were they thus intended then we would have a case of the institutional church forbidding the Holy Spirit to act only within the confines the institutional church has so ordained. In so doing then the institutional church would disqualify the work of the Holy Spirit in the world and among the People of God whose vocation is in that world, thereby disabling the taught church as the teaching church of the church which teaches. Of course, if for no other reason than to avoid the scandal of heresy occasion by the imposition of human limits on the Holy Spirit the catholic church does not consider the catechism and canon law as a normative measure for the full life of the church.

To what good end then is this public chiding of Bishop Hubbard? Well, Peters has established that there are some people that are or would be scandalized by Bishop Hubbard's pastoring and thus throw over orthodoxy. This concerns begs the questions for the scandalized:'Why is your faith so weak that sinners can shake you so easily?' Further: 'How can we help you strengthen your faith so that the lives of others do not so easily rattle you?'. On the whole these are good questions and Peters deserves credit for pointing to a concern for all pastors and ministers.

Also, Peters illustrates that canon law is indeed something laity need to be informed about if for no other reason so that they too can use it to protect themselves while offering their own reflections of the canons as input into the pastoral considerations of the pastors.

To what unhelpful end then is the public chiding of Bishop Hubbard? Well, Peters has again illustrates concern that Body of Christ is some how impaired when the Body of Christ is received by sinners. Of course he does recognize that the People of God are sinners even as they too are the Body of Christ. However, the Body of Christ, the Eucharist, is medicinal, and sinners are rightfully called by the Holy Spirit to receive that medicine. If in the fullness of faith we know that when someone receives the Eucharist it is as Jesus receives the Eucharist then the face of the communicant for the Eucharist minister (ordinary or extraordinary) can be only that of Christ himself. Therefore raising the possibility that the Eucharist ministers should refuse the Eucharist to known sinners is without merit as the ministers can see only Jesus' own face. Thus the demands of those such as Archbishop Raymond, formerly of St. Louis, are for naught. If indeed canon law seems to deny this actuality, then Peters has shown a section of the law that is not expressive of the fullness of our faith.

This is just incredibly ignorant!

THANK YOU!!!

Peters needs to get out of other people's private lives. First with the deacons and continence, and now this! The law is made for man, not man for the law!

"Cohabiting" presumes sexual activity. Just sharing a domicile isn't a sin unless the people determine that's too much an occasion of sin for them, but I don't see why it would be any more an occasion of sin than ever being alone together or over to each other's houses.

As for "scandal," if people are jumping to conclusions about two people living together and then using that to justify their own behavior, I think that's their problem. As Catholic Encyclopedia says on scandal:

"Still less can that be considered scandal, which only arouses comment, indignation, horror etc., for instance blasphemy committed in the presence of a priest or of a religious; it is true that the act arouses indignation and in common parlance it is often called scandalous, but this way of speaking is inaccurate, and in strictly theological terminology it is not the sin of scandal. Hence scandal is in itself an evil act, at least in appearance, and as such it exercises on the will of another an influence more or less great which induces to sin."

I don't think two people living together, or even sinning openly, necessarily induces others to sin. It may arouse comment or indignation or suspicion, but i don't think it is "scandalous" in the sense of causing anyone else to sin. All THAT (faulty) notion of "scandal" encourages is a mentality of hiding sins so as to not be a "bad example." But why should anyone be taking anyone else as a moral example in that sense given that we're all sinners? And look what happened with that mentality when it came to covering up the sins of priests...

Whom is Cuomo and this woman inducing to sin? Not me. I'm not looking at them and saying, "Oh, look, they're Catholic and cohabiting, adultery or fornication must be okay!" I just doubt anyone takes it "scandalously" that way.

The world has changed. Though it's pretty clear Cuomo and this woman are in a romantic relationship of some sort (and thus, in our culture, the assumption is that it's sexual)...sharing a house is no longer proof of anything. I knew people in college who lived in houses with, like, 3 girls/3 guys...but none of them were dating, or maybe one pair were but not the others, they were just friends. Who knows, maybe Cuomo is gay and this woman is just his "Grace"!!

I think all this concern about other peoples living arrangements is something Catholics would do well to stay away from in our freer more diverse world. I'm not saying change the moral teachings, just that acting like certain ancillary arrangements necessarily go along with (or imply a breech of) the moral teachings...is no longer accurate.

As for preserving conjugal living, I'm pretty sure the "minimum" just means continuing to be able to invoke the marital debt. Not sharing a house. I mean...what's the cut-off line? Do they have to share a bed? Do they have to sleep in the same room? If not, then drawing the line at domicile seems pretty arbitrary.

I pray that this heretical "catholic" newspaper loses it's funding and goes out of business.

"(Mr Peters, canon lawyers, all lawyers) have a misplaced understanding of the role of their legal craft in the life of the Church and society"?

This post makes me wonder if the author objects to lawyers or to law. And if objecting to law in the life of the Church, society--does the author really then take aim at the Framer of the Law? The 10 Commandments come to mind. #6 Thou shalt not commit adultry, #9 Shall not covet thy neighbor's wife.

And we all know Who wrote That Law...I hope we can agree on that.

Also, look at Scripture, the teachings of the Church, etc.

Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

The words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1665: The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion.

The Bible:
For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, And covering one's garment with injustice, says the LORD of hosts; You must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith.
17
You have wearied the LORD with your words, yet you say, "How have we wearied him?" By your saying, "Every evildoer is good in the sight of the LORD, And he is pleased with him"; or else, "Where is the just God?" (Malachi 2:16)

Again, Catechism of the Catholic Church: IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."[131]

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."[132] The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1496 The spiritual effects of the sacrament of Penance are:
- reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers grace;
- reconciliation with the Church;
- remission of the eternal punishment incurred by mortal sins;
- remission, at least in part, of temporal punishments resulting from sin;
- peace and serenity of conscience, and spiritual consolation;
- an increase of spiritual strength for the Christian battle.

1497 Individual and integral confession of grave sins followed by absolution remains the only ordinary means of reconciliation with God and with the Church.

A Prayer before Communion "May the reception of your Holy Mysteries be for me not unto judgment and condemnation, but for the cure of soul and body." This reflects the Word of God:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:29)

Fraternal correction would be privately, unless the sin is PUBLIC and therefore it leads others astray as well. This is why the correction is also public in a case of public sin. We all who care about souls would want to stand up for the truth for the sake of the souls involved. The Bishop has a higher responsibility--not only to assit the public sinner, but to instruct the faithful in the truth. These canon laws cited by Dr Peters are truly charity to Gov Andrew Cuomo and everyone hearing the truth. If only a Bishop instructed Mario Cuomo, perhaps his son was scandalized back then and that is why he is committing public mortal sin, endangering his soul and others.

A peculiar use of logic on the part of Mr. Winters. If we were to apply a reductio ad absurdum to this reasoning, we would be forced to conclude that St. Paul had no business excommunicating the man at Corinth who was reported to be having relations with his stepmother (I Cor 5:1-7). After all, St. Paul had no way of knowing for sure what was going on in their bedroom. But then again, perhaps that’s the way many people reading NCR feel--that Jesus founded Christianity, and then Paul came around and perverted it with his moralizing. Funny, then, why anyone who believes this would want to lay claim to the term Catholic rather than, say, gnostic.