Exactly and I fully understand that. But it not just what one considers the sacrament to be--it is also one's agreement to honor the authority of the Church. I can't for example, say I believe the sacrament to be the Body and Blood of Christ but I refuse to "join" the Church because of pedophile priest. You sell a potential convert on the authority a creep like Mahoney has over access to the sacrament.
a few things
ex opere operato, which means from the work done. Why I say this is that even when people like Mahoney when the administer the sacraments its not their merit its not their holiness that validates or invalidates the sacrament. IT is the work already done by Jesus Christ that Validates the Sacrament. So I don't care if an ordained priest murders 20 people abuses 100 children and is sleeping around with women. His sins never have any impact on the sacraments.
so if you are trying to argue that because Mahoney is a criminal he shouldn't have authority over sacraments. You misunderstand what the Church teaches.
Now the pope may revoke his faculties as a priest and bishop (cardinal is just a title added to bishop, bishop is thehighest ordained status any person in the Church a person can receive) meaning he couldn't except in extraordinary circumstances perform the sacraments.
on your you believe in it but don't want to come in because of sexual abuse. When someone recieves the body and blood of Jesus Christ he is saying in his action that he believes in it and believes in the Church who is administering this sacrament. This is why a PUBLIC act of belief is needed before reciving the sacrament. It is still the case in some places inthe Church that someone must confirm their faith before they can reiceve the Body and Blood of Christ. So you publicly accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church and then you can receive. For converts this is the way it works. At the vigil you are baptized (if necessary) you are confirmed and then you can receive the Eucharist.
Is there a Protestant church that denies communion to Christians or even discourages Christians to partake? Maybe I don't know. Not mine.
I was just using it as an example. But I don't think so the reason is they believe its only a symbol and doesn't change substance.
WE believe that Jesus is actually present the accidents of bread and wine. This is why we deny it to people, even Catholic Faithful.
Good Catholics should be questioning why this man made cannon law is so complex that wholesale covering up of sex abuse is still accommodated and that the guilty are still allowed to to things like help select the Pope.
cover up is much less wide spread and I don't think Mahoney will have an influence on the next pope, but I have no idea if he will or not.
plus it doesn't say in cannon law that we should cover up priests.
take a look at USCCB on this LINK
this is an issue that is left up to the individual conference of bishops usually. Only defrocking is left to the vatican. I'm not to educated on this stuff though so its slightly a guess.
but the days of letting sex abuse slide is behind us in most areas of the Church. Its just militant atheist and the secular media refuses to believe it and because that's what most people look at most people don't believe it either.
You can spin the reasoning and make excuses but today Law and Mahoney still enjoy the privileges Cardinals have and are still "leaders of the Church".
Why you support these men is beyond me.
never said I supported them.
But again defrocking, which kinda happened to Mahoney but the bishop can't remove his faculties to say mass because he is a bishop. Its alittle confusing because Mahoney is a retired bishop. Only roles he has in the diocese can he remove him from. Its not complex because we want this to slide its complex because of the nature of the Church.