Posted on 06/19/2006 5:19:31 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
WASHINGTON, June 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The task force appointed by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to "study" the issue of whether or not to give communion to Catholic politicians who persistently hold positions at odds with Catholic teaching has released its final report this weekend.
After years of deliberation and meetings, the verdict is in: bishops should decide for themselves. Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, the archbishop of Washington and head of the task force, reiterated the interim decision made by the US bishops at their meeting in Dallas in 2004. He said there was "no substitute for the local bishop's pastoral judgment and his vital relationships with Catholic public officials in his own diocese."
The only addition Cardinal McCarrick - who claims to be a political "moderate" - made to the original conclusion was to scold some members of the Conference for what he called "partisan" politics which he said was becoming prevalent in the US Church.
McCarrick said, "My concern is the fear that the intense polarization and bitter battles of partisan politics may be seeping into the broader ecclesial life of our Catholic people and maybe even of our Conference."
Since the 1960's the Democratic party, traditionally supported by the US Catholic bishops, has forced the political "centre" further to the left, adopting abortion, euthanasia and same-sex "marriage".
While most bishops have remained silent on the matter, a small cadre of younger bishops such as Charles Chaput of Denver, Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Raymond Burke of St. Louis, have in recent years begun to shift the Church - at least in their own dioceses - away from adherence to the Democrat party line and called on Catholics to uphold the moral law in public life. A number of these announced as a kind of "minority report" to the Dallas decision that abortion-supporting politicians in their dioceses would be refused Communion.
Cardinal McCarrick refers to himself as a political 'moderate'. During the presidential election, McCarrick was lauded by Democrats and liberal media for his "balance" in the face of the abortion/Communion question. He told the media, "I have not gotten to the stage where I'm comfortable in denying the Eucharist."
The Cardinal's response infuriated pro-life Catholics who were calling on the bishops to present a united front against politicians, such as then-presidential candidate John Kerry, who used the name Catholic and promoted unrestricted abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia.
American Life League launched a full-page ad in the Washington Times that featured a close-up picture of the crucified Christ and the text, "Cardinal McCarrick, are you comfortable now?"
Many Catholics pointed out that the work of the task force had been done for them. The Church's Code of Canon Law is clear on the subject saying that anyone who is in a state of "manifest grave sin" - which in Catholic teaching includes voting for or supporting the killing of children - must be refused Communion.
A number of Vatican prelates, including the future Pope Benedict XVI, made it clear that politicians who openly advocated abortion, same-sex "marriage", or civil unions for homosexual partners were to be refused Communion.
While the bishops were meeting in Dallas, McCarrick went so far as to suppress crucial instructions from then-Cardinal Ratzinger who was head of the Church's doctrinal office. Ratzinger's letter said unambiguously that politicians who denied fundamental Catholic doctrine "must be refused" Communion.
McCarrick is nothing but a mouthpiece for the First Church of Lard Ass the Gross!
Ahhh...McCarrick.
Please weigh in on this.
If they havent excommunicated Ted Kennedy its nothing to worry about. They wont excommunicate anyone.
Good old Teddy is the gold standard of apostates and they still give him communion.Just pathetic.
[Cardinal] McCarrick fears a political poison seeping into church [at Annual Conference]
Oh you have got to see this one!
Ping, ping, ping!
While most bishops have remained silent on the matter, a small cadre of younger bishops such as Charles Chaput of Denver, Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Raymond Burke of St. Louis, have in recent years begun to shift the Church..
Bruskewitz is 71. That's hardly "young." He is the only bishop to refuse to participate in the John Jay study audits of the manner in which bishops handled sexual abuse by clergy in their dioceses. And, he "excommunicated" Catholics in his diocese who belonged to certain groups, such as Call to Action and SSPX. His canonical authority to do this is highly questionable. He is out of sync with his brother bishops, which is why he's Peter-principled-out in Lincoln.
As for the thrust of the report, there is no stomach in the USCCB for a standardized policy regarding these politicians. If a bishop chooses to refuse the Eucharist to someone, he has that right, under this policy. If a bishop chooses to use other methods to attempt to change the mind of the politician, he is able to do that.
A number of Vatican prelates, including the future Pope Benedict XVI, made it clear that politicians who openly advocated abortion, same-sex "marriage", or civil unions for homosexual partners were to be refused Communion.
On the other hand, in a later letter, Ratzinger praised McCarrick and the US Bishops for their prayerful consideration of the matter.
If Bishops cannot deal with these issues in their own dioceses, in the manner in which they see fit, why nominate them? Just have Rome make every decision.
By the way, that is not something Benedict XVI favors. His first episcopal synod gave ample proof that he prefers to listen to his brother bishops and to allow them to come to a consensus without the heavy hand of interference.
I find it discouraging that McCarrick outright LIED to the bishops on his committee about what Cardinal Ratizinger's letter to him said.
Then, when his lie was made public, the bishops seem to have gone along with it.
Actually, I have no real quarrel with Sinkspur's assertion that the bishops should deal with these problems in their own dioceses. That's what a bishop is supposed to do, after all.
It doesn't mean that they can do anything they like. They need to follow the teachings of the Church and they need to follow canon law. The teachings of the Church make it clear that communion should not be given to anyone who is known to be in a state of unrepented mortal sin. Which, I fear, is clearly the case with politicians such as Kennedy and Kerry.
There's no way for a priest to know if every communicant is properly ready to receive communion. But the case of public figures is different. Their situations are known, and there is a large element of scandal as well as mortal sin involved. (The technical meaning of scandal is to publicly condone sinful behavior, thus setting a bad example for others. A bishop must avoid scandal of that kind.)
Also, of course, if every bishop is to run things in his own diocese, then it's long past time to deep six the National Council of Bishops. This organization has done no discernable good since its founding, but it has been responsible for a lot of evil. It's long past time to abolish it and fire the entire permanent bureaucracy who seem to think it is their job to tell the bishops what to do.
But on major doctrinal issues that the Church and society are facing today, such as abortion and the encroaching normalization of homosexaul behavior, the so-called "heavy hand of interference" should be used in order to present an unwavering front. No giant social change has ever occurred in America without the churches (Catholic or otherwise) leading the way (excepting, of course, when it's been changed by activist courts). Being squishy on this issue doesn't help, as people need strong leadership to act, even if some (Bishop Bruskewitz) have gone too far.
I would be very careful about declaring someone else to be in a state of mortal sin. The issue was not about mortal sin anyway, but about giving scandal. And that is something that only an individual bishop can determine, in his own diocese.
Also, of course, if every bishop is to run things in his own diocese, then it's long past time to deep six the National Council of Bishops.
This is not going to happen, especially since Benedict XVI is an even greater advocate for episcopal conferences than was JPII. He is very much a Pope who believes that they provide the best vehicle for collegiality, a central tenet of Vatican II (and thought to be one of Ratzinger's ideas as a periti.)
Given the horrendous way a large amount of American Bishops and Cardinals have been running their dioceses into the ground over the past few years, it's high time that the Pope exert strong leadership to either get these guys in line, or to put them into early retirement. The way that the homosexual issue has been allowed to become so infiltrated into the American Catholic leadership is an abomination, particularly the Bishop and Cardinals who are homosexual themselves, Archbishop Weakland being a shining example.
The only ones who seem to want this are some in the American Catholic Church.
The reason no universal mandates or disciplines are enacted is because the European Catholic Church would simply ignore them.
Am I close, in your opinion?
Why not bounce those Catholic politicians who favor legalized artificial birth control? Why pick and choose?
Same reason why we don't execute people for speeding - degree of the offense and impact upon society. While I'd be bouncing them myself, the birth control issue is simply not a political issue any more, only a moral one.
I still don't understand the distinction when it comes to theology, unless the Church is explicit that artificial birth control is less evil than partial birth abortion. I am not sure it has made that explicit distinction, but no doubt some other posters do know.
These are JPII bishops, in the full sense. JPII didn't kick sinners out of the Church, if you'll notice. He reserved his suspensions for Catholic theologians who taught questionable doctrine. Most of the biships he appointed are rather conservative, but they are pastorally practical.
I have encountered the "let's kick 'em out of the Church" or "let's refuse the Eucharist" advocacy only on FR. Benedict XVI is not a Pope who pushes this POV either.
Those who want a hard line from Rome with this papacy are going to be just as disappointed as they were with JPII. In fact, I don't think you'll see the Church return to that attitude in any official way in our lifetimes.
Yep, Cardinal McCarrick, and you and your Democrat supporting, brother Bishops brought it into the Conference. You let your political affiliations cloud your episcopal and pastoral judgement, and you've let the Catholics in leadership of the Democrat party get away with lying about Catholic teachings and confusing their constituents for too many years. The orthodox Bishops are now doing something different than what you'd been doing, and you don't like it, so you accuse them of being partisan; just like a Democrat.
There are degrees of sinfulness, if you will.
Procuring an abortion at one time imposed a latae sententiae penalty of excommunication that could only be lifted by the bishop. Now, any priest can lift it.
This is a difficult area, which is why these kinds of penalties should be left to the discretion of the local bishop.
Dear Torie,
Artificial contraception is a sin against the natural law, abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent human being.
Although Catholics are obligated to oppose artificial contraception, one can imagine an imperfectly just society where it might be tolerated in law. One might judge that from a practical perspective, trying to ban artificial contraception in law may cause more harm than good.
However, permitting individuals to procure the death of innocent human beings is fundamentally at odds with even the pretense of justice. A society that permits legal abortion loses its legitimacy over time.
sitetest
Yes, of course, the Bible says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Nevertheless, if a politician deliberately and repeatedly votes in favor of abortion, there's no doubt that he is committing a mortal sin.
And it would do no good to confess it if he intended to turn around and do it again, which is clearly the case with Kennedy and Kerry.
A bishop has a responsibility to lead his flock, which sometimes requires that he should make judgments like this. It may not be for thee and me to judge, but it is the responsibility of a bishop.
And a priest presiding over a Mass likewise has a responsibility not to allow communion to be given to anyone whom he knows is in a state of mortal sin. If he is in doubt about it, he should consult privately with the politician in question. It's possible that he may be surprised by the sudden appearance of a politician and not be able to do anything about it, but letting politicians like these communicate repeatedly is a gross dereliction of duty.
As far as I know, Kennedy and Kerry still have not received annulments of their former marriages, either. I can't believe that they would not have made them public if they had. That may be something only the Archbishop of Boston is in a position to know formally, but again, it's a question that should concern these ecclesiastics, since it involves public scandal.
Thanks for the note. I was just inquiring about Catholic theology per se. Of course I see a distinction myself, but then I am a near atheist, and not Catholic.
Dear Torie,
As best I can, I've tried to offer a Catholic theological perspective.
It isn't a tenet of Catholic moral theology that everything that is a sin must also be illegal.
But it is a tenet of Catholic moral theology that murder must be illegal.
sitetest
While I fully understand the tenor of Cardinal McCarrick's discomfort over the withholding of the Eucharist to any individual, I must also agree with your assertion that a priest knowingly extending the Host to a devotee of abortion is indeed in gross dereliction of duty...to deny someone the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ is a harsh action,indeed, but then Jesus himself would be aghast at the concept of infanticide for the sake of convenience, and its promulgation by a leader for the sake of political gain...
Yes, denial of the host is harsh. It is best done by prior arrangement, rather than by public refusal before the Sanctuary.
But look at it this way. I grew up as an Anglican, and in the service of The Lord's Supper in the old Book of Common Prayer, the congregation reminded themselves to to receive Communion unworthily amounted to "eating and drinking damnation unto themselves."
It's not doing Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry any favors to encourage their delusions. That is the path to damnation. Genuine Christian love of such people means that a pastor must speak truth to them. Bishops and priests have a duty to try to lead their flocks to salvation.
It is the worst kind of false kindness to encourage a sinner in his behavior. I suppose that is true for anyone, but it is especially true of a pastor whose duty is to lead his flock toward salvation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.