Actually Ratzinger Didn't Collude with the US Bishops Conference

LifeSiteNews.com ^

[LifeSite News]

...snip

A recent letter from Cardinal Ratzinger verified his leaked memorandum was authentic and in fact Church Doctrine. The letter also noted that the memo was "very much in harmony with the general principles" of his memorandum. The Ratzinger letter did not however condone the misleading slant of the Interim Report which strongly favored never denying communion. The Catholics in Political Life Statement, while it did leave the decision to deny communion up to local bishops, clarified that that must be done "in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles." Of note, Cannon 915 states that those "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion."

...snip

[Convert from ECUSA]

I hope you are right. But after all the bruhaha of he-said-he-didn't-say, etc., my level of trust in all of them is low, except for the six that stood firm at the USCCB recently.

[AskStPhilomena]

Actions speak louder than words.
The real question is:
After Ratzinger's flip-flop, is it any more likely that public promoters of the savage slaughter of millions of innocent unborn babies will now be prevented from sacrilegious Holy Communion?
Ratzinger hasn't been called a toothless lion for nothing...
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/042bev08-19-2003.htm

[saradippity]

Since no one knows the names of the six B/bishops who voted against the interim statement,all debate is quite silly.

If the six included Bishops Burke,Chaput,Bruscewitz,Sheridan and Vasa, then it is likely that the six were holding out for a stronger statement.

On the other hand,if the six included McCarrick,Pellotte,Lynch,Hubbard,Mahoney and Keeler,or others of their ilk,it is far more likely that they wanted a united vote for a much more dangerous statement that would have prevented B/bishops from witholding communion.

In other words,those six,who some on these threads hold to be heroes,may instead have been "manipulators",dedicated to producing a "collegial" statement that would have prevented individual B/bishops from exercising their authority and duty to lead their flocks in accord with Church teachings and Canon Law.

It seems that the whole debate is predicated on several assumptions that may or may not reflect the realities and really wastes time and energy.

Finally,there is no way that "very much in harmony" means "in accord with",I am sure Cardinal Ratzinger knows that as does Cardinal McCarrick,as does anyone who has ever written policies and procedures for large private or public entities.

[old and tired]

In other words,those six,who some on these threads hold to be heroes,may instead have been "manipulators",dedicated to producing a "collegial" statement

Yup. I'm not sure, but I think I read here that Burke has stated he voted with the majority.

It's actually pretty amazing that the statement was a strong as it was considering we now know that McCarrick kept Ratzinger's letter from the bishops. And I think it's safe to assume McCarrick mischaracterized Ratzinger's letter to them much the way he distorted it to the general public.

[saradippity]

When rotten and corrupted men,who had long plotted to destroy the Catholic Church,found the window into the Church more open after Vatican II,they took advantage and swarmed in before many unsuspecting Catholics realized what was happening. The advantage they had (the evil ones) was they knew what they were doing.

At this point,good Catholics ought to realize that we have to hold the fort while pushing the evil back out of the window without them realizing it.

However,when we paint every one who does not agree with us exactly,no matter how small the issue,as wrong,black,and/or evil,we waste valuable time. We not only fail to push out the corruption,we don't even hold the fort.

To paraphrase Andrew Solzhenitzen(sp?)"Evil men always agree with one another,that is their greatest strength". We Catholics have Truth on our side,however,our tendency to disagree on asides,is our greatest weakness and prevents us from cleaning out the heretics.

We should be spending time writing post cards to our B/bishops,telling them we are praying that they will have the courage to uphold Catholic teaching,as expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger;to wit,after ensuring the politicians know,will withold communion from politicians who dissent from Catholic teaching.

[Arguss]

"In other words,those six,who some on these threads hold to be heroes,may instead have been "manipulators",dedicated to producing a "collegial" statement that would have prevented individual B/bishops from exercising their authority and duty to lead their flocks in accord with Church teachings and Canon Law."

I've made the same proposition several times, but never got anybody interested in the possibility.

I think the six really were dissenters of allowing the possibility of denying Communion, because I'm pretty sure Bruskewitz, among some of the others you mentioned, said he would not deny it.

So the six, so called 'hero' Bishops, may have gone along with the wording of the majority of the Bishops, who decided it was an individual decision.

[saradippity]

It's too bad we can't bet on it,but since the information will not be forthcoming soon there isnt much point. However,I would bet a whole lot of money,that you and I are correct.

Those voting against it were p.o.'d that they couldn't get a statement passed that said, "communion will not be denied to anyone wishing to receive,if in her/his heart,s/he is following his conscience".

I believe this was a big victory for Catholics.

[Squire of St. Michael]

I can confirm that His Excellency, Archbishop Burke did vote with the majority. Also, I greatly encourage all to take saradippity's advice and write to your respective bishops. I certainly will. I've been turned off from posting because of the utter lack of respect given to the bishops qua bishops. Getting on-line and deriding these men accomplishes NOTHING and only drives away 'Novus Ordo pseudo-trads' like myself. Either way, we cannot know the hearts of other men. I'm encouraged by saradippity's suggestion since it is one of true prudent Christian action.

[Squire of St. Michael]

Here's the confirmation on Burke if anyone's curious.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.+Louis+City+%2F+County/EAF9C6818BC6F5E986256EBF0064788F?OpenDocument&Headline=Burke+clarifies+stance,+causes+more+turmoil&tetl=1