A bishop's failure to enforce canon law does not excuse his faithful from following it

[Michie]

It needs no long blog post from a canon lawyer to explain how wrong would be a failure by a bishop to protect his faithful against scandal and/or to defend the Eucharist against potential sacrilege but, make no mistake, in reiterating "it's not his policy" to withhold holy Communion from persons in 'same sex marriages'...

Continued below.
A bishop’s failure to enforce canon law does not excuse his faithful from following it

 

[chevyontheriver]

It needs no long blog post from a canon lawyer to explain how wrong would be a failure by a bishop to protect his faithful against scandal and/or to defend the Eucharist against potential sacrilege but, make no mistake, in reiterating "it's not his policy" to withhold holy Communion from persons in 'same sex marriages'...

Continued below.
A bishop’s failure to enforce canon law does not excuse his faithful from following it

So, even if cardinal Cupich fails to teach the whole truth and does not say to prohibit communion from those who are notorious in their serious sin, a minister of communion has to prohibit it anyway. But what if cardinal Cupich were to order that communion be provided for those who are notorious in their serious sin? I'm presuming the answer is the same. One wonders what cardinal Cupich would say about that?

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

So, even if cardinal Cupich fails to teach the whole truth and does not say to prohibit communion from those who are notorious in their serious sin, a minister of communion has to prohibit it anyway. But what if cardinal Cupich were to order that communion be provided for those who are notorious in their serious sin? I'm presuming the answer is the same. One wonders what cardinal Cupich would say about that?

He would probably send you to the loony bin...