I was in the middle of this story some years back, not about bishop as abuser and high-liver but as greedy for land owned by some aged sisters in which project he was bucked by the Jesuit president of Wheeling Jesuit university, deposed by his board wary of offending the good man in charge, who looked bad then and looks worse now.

He’d come to the job after years as head man at the Immaculate Conception Basilica in Wash DC, which high-income position he held at some part of the eminent McCarrick and the deposed Wuerl incumbencies.

The webs they wove.

How was I in this bishop’s story? By blogging incessantly about the drama of the deposed Jesuit and his hardy defenders, all at

The Great West Virginia President Firing

When Julio Giulietti was shot off his horse

Issue will be aired.

Some qq I would have: Will they become 2nd-class citizens in a celibate-dominated church? Will they receive 1st-class education, as in theology, bible study, and above all, preaching? Will celibacy continue to be respected etc.?

Call me suspicious.

Actually, Kasper is saying the right things (as if my endorsement carried weight):

“Personally, I’m very much in favor of maintaining celibacy as an obligatory way of life with a commitment to the cause of Jesus Christ, but this doesn’t exclude that a married man can carry a priestly service in special situations,” Kasper said.

In any case, the article touches many bases, including those marked by your faithful servant, Mr. Suspicious.

In this case in re: same-sex marriages and how (not) to minister to them. Advice sent to his priests and his rebuttal of comments by well-known gay-rights promoter Fr. James Martin SJ, who argued against such advice.

First, Fr. Martin, who

. .  . posted my decree on Twitter and said in a series of tweets, “If bishops ban members of same-sex couples from funeral rites, they must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics without annulments . . . women who have children out of wedlock, members of straight couples living together before marriage, anyone using birth control . . . members of straight couples living together before marriage, anyone using birth control. . . . To focus only on LGBT people, even those in same-sex marriages, without a similar focus on the sexual or moral behavior of straight people is in the words of the ‘Catechism’ a ‘sign of unjust discrimination.”

The bishop:

Father Martin gets a lot wrong in those tweets, since canon law prohibits ecclesiastical funeral rites only in cases of “manifest sinners” which gives “public scandal,” and something such as using birth control is a private matter that is usually not manifest or made public.

Moreover, my decree does not focus on “LGBT people,” but on so-called same-sex marriage, which is a public legal status. No one is ever denied the sacraments or Christian burial for simply having a homosexual orientation. Even someone who had entered into a same-sex “marriage” can receive the sacraments and be given ecclesiastical funeral rites if they repent and renounce their “marriage.

Boiler-plate stuff which Fr. Martin has to know. What he seems not to know is that he is going head-to-head with a very wise lawyer, both civil and church, who respects the law and expounds it with strength and clarity. And teaches at Notre Dame, by the way.

More that Fr. Martin should know:

Father Martin also misses the key phrase in the decree that ecclesiastical funeral rites are to be denied to persons in same-sex marriages “unless they have given some signs of repentance before their death.” This is a direct quote from canon 1184 of the Code of Canon Law, which is intended as a call to repentance. Jesus began his public ministry proclaiming the Gospel of God with these words: “This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).

In other words, those living openly in same-sex marriage, like other manifest sinners who give public scandal, can receive ecclesiastical funeral rites if they gave some sign of repentance. This does not mean that unrepentant manifest sinners will simply be refused or turned away. Even in those cases where a public Mass of Christian Burial in church cannot be celebrated because the deceased person was unrepentant and there would be public scandal, the priest or deacon may conduct a private funeral service, for example, at the funeral home.

The issue, once again, being the public part and scandal, that is, not horror (!) at this or that transgression, but giving witness that condones it and leads people to think the church has changed its teaching. The teaching being what bishops as church leaders are supposed to preserve and protect, not flout.

This bishop has more to say as to private obligations in the matter, as regards the individual and the bishop, whoever he might be.

Read it at the link given above.

In for a dime, in for a dollar. What’s a church good for, anyhow? Or a bishop. What’s he supposed to do, wink?

The Bishop of Springfield, Illinois, has decreed that state legislative leaders may not be admitted to Holy Communion within his diocese, because of their work to pass the state Reproductive Health Act.

[He] also directed that Catholic legislators who have voted for legislation promoting abortion should not present themselves to receive Holy Communion until they have first gone to confession.

In detail:

“In accord with canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law…Illinois Senate President John Cullerton and Speaker of the House Michael J. Madigan, who facilitated the passage of the Act Concerning Abortion of 2017 (House Bill 40) as well as the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 25), are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois because they have obstinately persisted in promoting the abominable crime and very grave sin of abortion as evidenced by the influence they exerted in their leadership roles and their repeated votes and obdurate public support for abortion rights over an extended period of time,” Bishop Thomas Paprocki wrote in a June 2 decree.

The latter offense, Reproductive Health Act, 2019, surely prompted the bishop of the capital city to make this public statement. It’s something that carves into legislative stone the fanaticism of the pro-aborts, declaring it to be a “fundamental right” and putting dragon’s teeth into a truly draconian law.

Among . . . provisions that the bill would remove are regulations for abortion clinics, required waiting periods to obtain an abortion, and a ban on partial-birth abortion. In addition, it would lift criminal penalties for performing abortions and would prevent any further state regulation of abortion.

The legislation would require all private health insurance plans to cover elective abortions, and eliminate reporting requirements as well as regulations requiring the investigation of maternal deaths due to abortion.

Open season on unborn, if not (because of the no-go-zone declared for investigation) the newly born who are not wanted.

Note: Durbin had already received notice from the bishop, in February, 2018, also with reference to Canon 915.