Ratzinger vs. Kerry (McCarrick): Round 2. A Well-Tempered Controversy

Chiesa (Italy) ^ | 7-14-04 | Sandro Magister

[Mershon]

Ratzinger vs. Kerry, Round II. A Well-Tempered Controversy The prefect of the Holy Office douses the flames. His ‘No’ to communion for pro-abortion Catholic politicians is “very much in harmony,” he writes, with the ‘Yes’ of most of the U.S. bishops. But the rigorists are holding firm

by Sandro Magister • VERSIONE ITALIANA •

ROMA – There’s an uneasy cease-fire between Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and the American bishops on the question of whether or nor to give communion to the Catholic politicians who oppose the Church’s doctrine on abortion, lead by the Democratic presidential candidate, John F. Kerry. On July 12, the United States bishops’ conference published on its website a letter from the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed to cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick (in the photo). In it, Ratzinger acknowledges that the document by the American bishops, “Catholics in Political Life,” dated June 18, is “very much in harmony” with the general principles of the memorandum “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” which Ratzinger sent privately to the American bishops on the eve of their mid-July assembly in Denver.

Here is a link to the press release given July 12 by the United States bishops’ conference, with the complete text of Ratzinger’s letter and a comment from McCarrick:

> Cardinal Ratzinger Says U.S. Bishops' Statement...

Here is the document from the American bishops, dated June 18:

> Catholics in Political Life

And here you will find Ratzinger’s memorandum, made public July 3 in an article on www.chiesa:

> The Kerry Affair: What Ratzinger Wanted from the American Bishops

* * *

In effect, the first appearance of Ratzinger’s memorandum on this website created more disconcert than “harmony.” The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith came across as being decisively set on the refusal of the Eucharist to Kerry and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians. The American bishops, meanwhile, appeared reluctant to deny communion.

But not all of them. The minority that had declared itself as being in favor of refusing communion to Kerry before the Denver assembly held the same line firmly after it. On July 2, just as Ratzinger’s text was about to be made public, the archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond L. Burke, announced the publication of an even more rigorous pastoral letter. In it, Burke accuses of mortal sin even the Catholics who vote for a candidate who is in favor of abortion. In order to receive communion, they would need to repent and confess.

Burke is the most visible of those who support the idea of refusing the Eucharist to Kerry – he made a public statement to this effect during the primaries – and he is highly respected in the Vatican. Promoted to the important see of St. Louis, he received the bishop’s pallium from John Paul II this June 29, in St. Peter’s Square in Rome. St. Louis is in Missouri, where another pro-abortion Catholic politician will be under fire in the November elections: the Democratic candidate for governor, Claire McCaskill. Missouri is one of the swing states, so a slight voting shift could be decisive.

Here is the link to the article in the “St. Louis Review,” the diocesan weekly, which anticipates the contents of the pastoral letter:

> Pastoral Letter to Address Church Teachings on Voting

An analogous pronouncement against voting for a pro-abortion candidate came the same day from another rigorist bishop, Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs.

Moreover, a judge in the archdiocese of Los Angeles, an expert in canon law, Marc A. Balestrieri, denounced Kerry for heresy to the ecclesiastical tribune of Boston, the archdiocese frequented by the Democratic candidate. You will find the text of the denunciation on the website of the group De Fide, to which Balestrieri belongs:

> Denunciation of U.S. Senator John F. Kerry for Heresy

* * *

So the publication of Ratzinger’s memorandum appeared to prove right the supporters of the hard line, and to prove the bishops’ conference wrong. This was at least what came out in numerous comments in the American press after July 3.

So it was natural that the bishops’ conference, and in particular cardinal McCarrick, the head of the task force charged with this question, would react.

On July 6, McCarrick made a declaration through his spokesman, Susan Gibbs. The cardinal maintained that the text by Ratzinger reproduced on www.chiesa was “incomplete and partial” in terms of the “written materials” sent to him by the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the request that they not be made public.

And he denied any opposition with Rome: "The Holy See has constantly emphasized it is up to our bishops' conference to discuss and determine how best to apply the relevant principles and for individual bishops to make prudent pastoral judgments in our own circumstance."

The essence of McCarrick’s declaration was published by “Catholic News Service”, the official news agency of the United States bishops’ conference:

> Cardinal McCarrick Says Leaked Ratzinger Memo Is Not Whole Story

In a second article, written by its Rome correspondent John Thavis, “Catholic News Service” confirmed as “authentic” – citing Vatican sources – Ratzinger’s memorandum as published by www.chiesa. According to these sources, Ratzinger “was not trying to dictate a policy to the bishops” because “it is right to leave a margin of prudential judgment in these cases:”

> Cardinal Ratzinger Lays out Principles on Denying Communion, Voting

As for the source that provided Ratzinger’s memorandum to www.chiesa, McCarrick’s spokesman said she believed it should be sought within the Vatican.

“Catholic News Agency”, in a July 7 article, relates that – according to this source – Ratzinger’s memorandum “is a document in itself that hardly requires a context or further documents for interpretation”; that the accompanying letter “does not modify a bit the full content of the memorandum” nor require that this be kept secret; and that it is not opposed to the application of prudential judgment, “but clearly establishes the frameset [sic] in which such prudential judgment must take place:”

> Controversy over Communion to Pro-Abortion Politicians Continues

* * *

Returning to Ratzinger’s letter to McCarrick, it must be emphasized that, when it speaks of “harmony,” it refers exclusively to the document "Catholics in Political Life,” but passes over in silence the “Interim Reflections” produced in Denver by the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, presided over by McCarrick himself.

The reason is simple. The “Interim Reflections” are much more difficult to harmonize with the principles fixed by Ratzinger in his memorandum. You will find these reflections also on the website of the bishops’ conference:

> Interim Reflections of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians

__________

English translation by Matthew Sherry: > traduttore@hotmail.com

Go to the home page of > www.chiesa.espressonline.it/english, to access the latest articles and links to other resources.

Sandro Magister’s e-mail address is s.magister@espressoedit.it

[Mershon]

Returning to Ratzinger’s letter to McCarrick, it must be emphasized that, when it speaks of “harmony,” it refers exclusively to the document "Catholics in Political Life,” but passes over in silence the “Interim Reflections” produced in Denver by the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, presided over by McCarrick himself.

The reason is simple. The “Interim Reflections” are much more difficult to harmonize with the principles fixed by Ratzinger in his memorandum.

[Aquinasfan]

Returning to Ratzinger’s letter to McCarrick, it must be emphasized that, when it speaks of “harmony,” it refers exclusively to the document "Catholics in Political Life,” but passes over in silence the “Interim Reflections” produced in Denver by the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, presided over by McCarrick himself.

The reason is simple. The “Interim Reflections” are much more difficult to harmonize with the principles fixed by Ratzinger in his memorandum.

OK. That makes a little sense. But it just seems that Cardinal Ratzinger is pussyfooting around with the bishops. I don't see the downside of privately or publicly correcting them, except for the remote chance of schism.

[old and tired]

This stuff is hard to read and it can test our faith. In my kinder moments, I think more souls would be lost in an open schism than are lost in misrepresenting the Faith. And then I pray the Sorrowful Mysteries until I believe it again.

[AAABEST]

This stuff is hard to read and it can test our faith.

It doesn't test my faith in them as I have no faith whatsoever in American bishops. As a whole they are useless at best and agents of the enemy at worst.

They can't even take a strong stand in helping those of us who still care to put a stop to the ending of a child's life. They truly have lost their way.

It doesn't test my faith in God either as my faith is stronger than ever. In fact I owe these creeps a big thankyou. If they hadn't caused me to run from the disastrous circus they've created known as the AmChurch, I would never have found Catholicism.

[sydney smith]

Ain't that the truth! Remember, the n.o. system neither owns the sacraments nor do they own God. If you need them to worship the one true God you are in deep doo-doo. Could you imagine needing a sleazy novus ordo 'deacon' to get to God? Or perhaps a predatorial perverted novus ordo cleric to get to heaven? Marcel is a saint in my eyes. Eventually we'll get a pope with the sense to realize it.

[johnb2004]

I don't see the downside of privately or publicly correcting them, except for the remote chance of schism.

They already are.

[Mershon]

The point of this post is that once again, the Washington Novus Ordo apparatus is "spinning" things to make it look like Ratzinger supports their Denver statement, when really nothing of the kind has happened.

But the story is so twisted, nobody can understand it unless they read the fine print at the end of this article. Sandro Magister is a much more trusted and authoritative reporter than any of the Catholic News Service apparatus that is run by McCarrick and company.

[Mershon]

"Vatican I said the Pope is the Supreme Legislator. But it acknowledged limits on his authority as well."

Yes and yes.

"Nothing he legislates, for instance, can ever displace Divine Law which prohibits his doing an injustice and proscribes his punishing the innocent."

Of course, but the assumption as faithful Catholics is that the Pope is the final earthly authority. He will be judged by God alone regarding these situations.

"If the Pope declares someone in schism, therefore, he has a moral obligation to explain this judgment fully and not to discount the facts which contradict his judgment."

I'm certain Luther thought the same thing. Explain it fully until his satisfaction is met, right? Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordaining bishops against the express will of the Holy Father. That is factual. That is objectively and morally wrong. Even if it was objectively "a state of emergency," this provision cannot be used AGAINST the supreme legislator and interpreter of canon law, who happens to be the Pope.

"Because the Pope did not do this,"

In your own opinion. Read Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. The reasons given are pretty obvious.

"he has put his own credibility in doubt."

I'm certain that all heretics, schismatics and infidels think the same thing.

"It is true, however, that his judgment stands legally, and that for all intents and purposes the SSPX appears condemned."

Wow. What an admission.

"But the legal situation only covers-over a nullity,"

In your private opinion, not binding on the consciences of anyone other than yourself.

"because the moral situation is altogether different."

In your private opinion.

"Those who now stand condemned for appearing to oppose the Pope, are in reality those who are morally most praiseworthy for having defended the ancient faith."

Like I said before, I'm certain that Luther, subjectively, thought the same thing.

[Convert from ECUSA]

First its one way then its another. One day it is reported Ratzinger is standing up to McCarrick (Kerry), then its reported that they are all kissy-face/huggy-bear. Makes it hard to know who's telling us the truth. I've said on more than one occasion since I crossed the Tiber last September that I became Catholic more despite most of our leaders than because of them. I am thankful that I am in a good parish with a wonderful pastor, a classic Irish dreadnought of 73 who is a product of what the Church used to be like. This stuff doesn't test my faith in Jesus, but it sure doesn't to much for my trust in our Church's leadership (with the exception of about 6 or so bishops who stood firm at the USCCB recently).

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

You wrote:Like I said before, I'm certain that Luther, subjectively, thought the same thing.

Of course Luther did but he also made manifest, didn't he, where he thought the Church of 1519 had strayed from the ancient faith. IOW he postulated more than 1000 years had passed and now, he, Luther was going to save everything. This flies against common sense.

Lefevbre denied or changed no catholic doctrine and signed all V2 documents. There are superficial similarities between the two but it doesn't take much reflection to see many, many pertinent differences and extenuating circumstances. e.g. transubstantiation and consubstantiation for starters, prayer for dead, Luther's faith alone, sola scriptura, his deletion of letters of james, Jude, from Bible etc. And oh yeah, Lefevbre gave a life of completes uncontroversial faithful service to the church to age 65 and christianized a lot of pagan africa. where did Luther go? To say the two in any meaningful way are similar really, IMHO opinion, is absurd.

Just today you have kindly posted an update for us about McCarrick-Ratzinger. Would you not agree that many of the decisions of US bishops and Vatican of last 40 years appear grossly unjust? Not just 1 bad judgment for poor lefevbre. If SSPX was only "wrong" thing Vatican did, nobody would care and sspx would be on ash heap of history, or way of Old catholics.

The only thing that this "broad brush" schism charge does is make it easier for orthodox catholics to prevent Mahoney types from ordaining bishops; and that's not a small thing. But to use sspx schism situation as a club on this forum shows lack of discretion and charity. If tomorrow sspx is regularized, all the diehard anti-sspxers will be in the odd situation of wanting the sspx apostolate in their faith-forsaken diocese. The regularization will really be just an administrative decision. In anticipation of that day, why don't we maximize the charity towards each other; it'll be easier to work together when that happens if we don't all despise (forgive a little hyperbole here) each other.

For the record, I attend NO only and have excellent church and no need or desire for sspx where i live.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

your conversion is a consolation for all of us Catholics here. I have heard a mystical explanation for the Church's current predicament. Just as Christ suffered so much that his appearance was beyond that of mortal man, so marred was appearance, and even on the cross He uttered words suggesting he was forsaken by God, so now His mystical body likewise bears horrible wounds such that it is barely recognizable and many Catholics likewise feel forsaken by God.

[Mershon]

You said I wrote:Like I said before, I'm certain that Luther, subjectively, thought the same thing.

You take one sentence out of context of any entire message where I responded point-by-point to Ultima, and then you go on for paragraphs about things that are manifestly obvious to everyone.

Luther and Lefebvre both thought they must disobey the Pope to help to "save" the Church. This is consistent, right?

You said: Lefevbre denied or changed no catholic doctrine and signed all V2 documents.

Yes he did. Would you like to posit that all, or even a majority of SSPX priests and bishops believe all the documents of Vatican II were orthodox and completely in line with Tradition? I have read MANY different points of view within SSPX itself.

You said: There are superficial similarities between the two

Interesting use of the word "superficial." So there are similaries, is that what you are saying?

You said: And oh yeah, Lefevbre gave a life of completes uncontroversial faithful service to the church to age 65 and christianized a lot of pagan africa. where did Luther go?

This is indisputable. I'm certain that Lefebvre did many good deeds. However, this has NOTHING to do with the original point nor my response.

You said: To say the two in any meaningful way are similar really, IMHO opinion, is absurd.

I thought you just admitted above that there were some similarities? Now you say that is absurd. I'm confused. Which is it?

You said: Just today you have kindly posted an update for us about McCarrick-Ratzinger. Would you not agree that many of the decisions of US bishops and Vatican of last 40 years appear grossly unjust?

There have always been many decisions by many Catholics, bishops and priests that have appeared to be unjust throughout the history of the Church. However, this does not EVER give any bishop or Archbishop or Cardinal the authority nor right to ordain bishops against the express wishes of the Pope!

You said: The only thing that this "broad brush" schism charge does is make it easier for orthodox catholics to prevent Mahoney types from ordaining bishops;

Agreed. I never accused anyone of "schism." I merely said Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordaining bishops against the express wishes of the Sovereign Pontiff--the Vicar of Christ. And as you said THAT is "not a small thing."

You said: But to use sspx schism situation as a club on this forum shows lack of discretion and charity.

Club and discretion and charity? Since when is it uncharitable to say Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated (or excommunicated himself) by ordaining bishops against the express will of the Holy Father? I believe that is true. I am using nothing as a club, but gave a point-by-point analysis of Ultima Ratio's lack of "ratio."

You said: If tomorrow sspx is regularized, all the diehard anti-sspxers will be in the odd situation of wanting the sspx apostolate in their faith-forsaken diocese.

Doubt it very much.

You said: The regularization will really be just an administrative decision.

They would certainly like you to think that, wouldn't they?

You said: In anticipation of that day, why don't we maximize the charity towards each other; it'll be easier to work together when that happens if we don't all despise (forgive a little hyperbole here) each other.

The exercise of charity entails truth, does it not? Vatican I and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, agree with the decision or not, are both binding upon the consciences of Catholics.

You said: For the record, I attend NO only and have excellent church and no need or desire for sspx where i live.

I attend a Novus Ordo parish, with two "orthodox" Novus Ordo pastors. However, I also attend an indult Mass twice-a-month. The fact that you see no "need nor desire for the SSPX" shows me you understand very little about the importance of the traditional missal vs. the missal of Bugnini. The Novus Ordo apparatus in the U.S. has helped to destroy the Faith these past 40 years. However, I will continue to hope and pray for the regularization of the SSPX, and in particular, two diocesan priests who now say Mass for the SSPX.

[Convert from ECUSA]

To all good and faithful Catholics who feel forsaken by God in all the current mess....take it from a former Anglican dreadnought, keep reading the wonderful old Catholic classics, be very devoted to Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, pray the Rosary daily, and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy often. I was doing those things for the last few years when I was Anglican in the ECUSA. And remember when Elijah was up on the mountain and thought he was the only one left, and God told him "I've kept for myself 7,000 that have not bent the knee to Baal or kissed him." I've wondered if we're going through a lot of this to mirror/participate with Christ's sufferings. And like the godly Israelites enduring because of Divine Judgment passed on the apostates of ancient Israel - perhaps we're called to live through all this to witness that God will not tolerate being mocked; we have seen so many in the Church mock Him and take Him lightly.

[ninenot]

Bookmark

[victim soul]

Truer words were never spoken.

It doesn't test my faith in God either as my faith is stronger than ever. In fact I owe these creeps a big thankyou. If they hadn't caused me to run from the disastrous circus they've created known as the AmChurch, I would never have found Catholicism.

[ninenot]

my faith is stronger than ever

25 years of Weakland forced me to do a bit of reading, too.

AMAZING what one can learn about Catholicism when one has to!!!

[ninenot]

Actually, your confusion comes from giving credulity to the statements of the USCC and (in this particular case) Cdl. McCarrick.

Ratzinger has been consistent and clear: '[communion] MUST be denied to those who [see Canon 915.]

McCarrick first tried the old "you didn't see the whole thing" trick. Then when R. sent a letter about ANOTHER USCC document, McCarrick did the old mis-direction trick. (It's about THIS one, not THAT one.)

The fact is that McCarrick's been caught, red-handed, LYING about the position of Rome, which was my suspicion all along. Rome cannot possibly contradict her own Canon laws.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

Mershon, I am flabbergasted. Apologies, somehow I possibly insulted you. It appears too you feel reading my post was a waste of time. Permit me only one last chance (I promise) to engage you in meaningful conversation, maybe to at least partially salvage a modicum of your respect

My main point was I think it is very unfair to compare Lefevbre to Luther. I concede "superficial similarities" but say they are not similar in any "meaningful way". I don't see where I am inconsistent. Dirt and chocolate are both brown and difficult to remove from clothes, but after that, aren't most of their differences more important than their similarities? But then again maybe not to a Laundry Service; maybe you have a different and legitimate perspective too. I hope this is not insulting you: I still don't get if you think Luther and Lefevbre were very similar or not; twice you compared them and found them similar in your post. But in your response to me you would seem to agree they were very different. So why would you compare them similarly in your post? Why use an analogy that is so defective?

Re "Broad brush schism" charge: certainly did not mean to imply you said that. I was writing more generally about what i read on FR. Much of what I wrote besides the Luther bit was just by association and did not have you as a specific recipient, Sorry, that was a waste of your time. Had I known that, I wouldn't have written anything beyond Luther. I really had no idea about any of your opinions other than the Luther thing before I responded.

Re lefevbre excommunication: whether he is so or not actually matters little to me personally, sorry. There are so many American bishops in material schism and formal or material heresy that whatever Lefevbre's sins, they are almost trivial in comparison to what our episcopate does.

I prefer the old Missal translations and collects myself but the NO collects could easily be revised: wanderer provides weekly update of alternatives and they are great. I prefer ad orientem and kneeling for communion.
But the NO properly celebrated is fine by me and I don't apologize for it. That's where sspx gets hung up for me when they insist that NO is inherently deficient and they cast aspersions on NO.

Peace Brother

[saradippity]

I think you are just about exactly right. The Pope has said that often in exerpts I have seen from different audiences he has addressed. It's a very supernatural thing and that is why prayer is so very important.

[ninenot]

For more clarification, read the thread-head article carefully.