Posted on 08/18/2005 2:23:50 PM PDT by NYer
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Anytime a local bishop denies Communion to a politician because of his stand on abortion, the decision can have "national ramifications," Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh said in a statement exploring ways the U.S. bishops could reach a more united approach to such decisions.
"There must be some way in which the bishops can establish a process, mechanism or procedure" for appropriate national consistency, he said.
"Given the mobility of the population and the ubiquity and influence of the means of social communications," he said, "actions taken by one bishop within a diocese can have immediate national impact and affect the bishops of the rest of the dioceses throughout the country, especially neighboring dioceses which share the same media market."
Bishop Wuerl released his 2,800-word statement to Catholic News Service in Washington in mid-August. He said the issue was highlighted "in last year's election and the controversy surrounding (Democratic presidential candidate) Sen. John Kerry," a Catholic who has consistently opposed legal restrictions on abortion.
Each bishop has the proper power and responsibility for pastoral ministry and church order in his own diocese, Bishop Wuerl noted. But he stressed that, in the words of the Second Vatican Council, "All the bishops, in fact, have a duty to promote and defend the unity of faith and discipline common to the whole church."
Commenting on that passage, he said, "There are often specific issues of a doctrinal and moral nature which are current in a territory that, because of the nature of the subject and the wide spectrum of peoples and circumstances that will be affected, necessitate a greater cooperation among the bishops of a given territory."
In January 2003 the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said Catholics in public life have a grave obligation to oppose legislation that contradicts fundamental moral principles such as the evil of abortion and euthanasia.
That fall the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops formed a task force to study how U.S. bishops should deal with such politicians.
The task force, headed by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, originally was not to report back to the bishops until mid-November of 2004, after the presidential election was over.
Controversy over the Kerry candidacy forced the issue, however. Partisans on one side berated bishops who would not deny Communion to Kerry or similar politicians as cowardly. Partisans on the other side accused bishops who would do so of crossing church-state lines or politicizing the Eucharist.
It became national news each weekend whether Kerry attended Mass and received Communion. Reporters across the country began pressing bishops for what they would do about giving Communion to Kerry or other Catholic politicians with similar positions.
The McCarrick task force gave an extensive interim report to the bishops in June and the bishops issued a statement warning politicians who act "consistently to support abortion on demand" that they risk "cooperating in evil and sinning against the common good."
The statement went on to say, however, that "given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment" in each case, decisions concerning the fitness of a particular person to receive Communion "rest with the individual bishop."
Bishop Wuerl described the importance of bishops' conferences in promoting the unity of bishops among themselves and with the pope and fostering collaboration and collegial planning and decision-making among the bishops. But he said that in light of church teaching and law on the responsibilities of diocesan bishops and the limits on the authority of bishops' conferences, the conference "does not act as a substitute for the diocesan bishop, but, rather, as a help to him."
Since "there are always going to be national ramifications" to any individual bishop's way of handling the abortion-and-politicians issue, however, "one may understand the benefit of consultation among the bishops of the episcopal conference for a more effective unity in handling such a matter," he said.
He proposed two possible ways for the bishops' conference to find "a practical pastoral manner to express the collegial spirit that is to be the hallmark of episcopal pastoral ministry."
"One such approach would be an actual mechanism of the conference to facilitate some consensus and unified pastoral practice," he said. "Another approach, which would be less formal but perhaps more effective, would be the commitment on the part of all the bishops to discuss beforehand, through some conference structure, decisions that will impact all of the bishops and the church as a whole."
He said a formal mechanism of review by the conference before barring a politician from Communion would require either a two-thirds vote of the bishops and a mandate from the Vatican or a completely unanimous decision by the bishops.
The less formal approach would require all bishops to agree not to make such decisions without prior consultation through procedures agreed by the conference. "The advantage of the second option is found in its ability both to recognize the responsibility of the individual bishop within his diocese and also to provide a context for the communal exercise of that episcopal responsibility," Bishop Wuerl wrote.
And I was hoping to have a good old fashioned Auto de Fe.
"When lay Catholics get tired of the Eucharist being profaned, things will change."
I must respectfully disagree. Things will change when enough Catholics vote with their feet and their pocketbooks. The problems in the Catholic church are primarily in the institutional churches, not with the community in worship.
I just hope that when Catholics do choose to vote with their feet and pocketbooks, that they'll choose to treat themselves to a nice, long vacation on the eastern shore of the Tiber.
"And I was hoping to have a good old fashioned Auto de Fe."
Naaah. Not an eastern tradition.
If all serious Catholics left the Latin Rite, the Latin Rite will be a playground for fake Catholics like the Kennedys. That will help the Eastern Rites to gain prominence in the West, but it will exacerbate the problems in the Latin Catholicism.
The necessary voting with feet and pocketbooks is already happening and it will continue. This is the outflow away from liberal parishes toward parishes that treat Catholicism seriously. One does not need to switch rites to do that. One does not even have to look for an indult traditional parish, although that is a big part of the message. This is America, folks. We got cars. Find a parish that does not insult your religion. The bishops will get the message.
One immense merit of the Holy Inquisition is that it works over the heads of the heterodox bishops.
This let's-get-a-consensus-of-the-USCCB stuff is a contemptible and cowardly strategem. Where is the zeal for souls? Where is the love?
Where is the Bishop who will pick up a phone, call John Kerry (or-- insert name here) and say,
"Listen, you and I need to have a serious talk about some very grave spiritualp and moral matters. I'm here to help you form your conscience in conformity with the mind of Christ.
Canon 915 of the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law states:
Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion.
You are in danger of being barred from Holy Communion. As your spiritual father, I am telling you under holy obedience that you must not receive Holy Communion until you and I have a serious confidential conference about your spiritual and moral state."
So, should I print this off and send it to my bishop?
I think, catechizing the bishops is our major responsibility.
Parishioners see one bishop doing his job, all of a sudden they're gonna expect other bishops to do theirs. Lord knows what would happen then!
It is my understanding that a process like Wuerl is proposing is directly contrary to the duties and responsibilities of the individual bishops. As in, they can't legitimately agree to something like that, putting their pastoral duties up for a vote of the national conference.
It's something that would have to be accepted unanimously and voluntarily if at all.
In short, it's bizarre.
Matthew 18: 5-9:
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!
If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.
And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna."
Wonder what part of this text from Matthew the good Bishop does not understand? I don't see any allusions to a Roper poll.
Frank
Thank you for posting those passages from Matthew. Here's one that should be added to the list ....
"To whom much has been given, much is expected".
Bisho Wuerl is a committed Democrat.
You're misreading it. This idea would be the setup of a legally binding mechanism - which would bind all the bishops of the United States. The law setting this mechanism up would require a 2/3 vote - he's not referring to the mechanism itself.
AND a mandate from the Vatican. Fat chance of that!
The USCCB doesn't have the canonical authority to set up a legally binding mechanism --- does it?
Bp. Wuerl needs to:
1) Read the Canon Law. The individual Bishops are the ONLY ones empowered to rule in their Dioceses--and are REQUIRED to rule therein.
2) Spend a few days on retreat, preferably in a testosterone-enhancing environment. Basic Combat Training comes to mind.
You called???
Can. 455 §1 The Episcopal Conference can make general decrees only in cases where the universal law has so prescribed, or by special mandate of the Apostolic See, either on its own initiative or at the request of the Conference itself.§2 For the decrees mentioned in §1 validly to be enacted at a plenary meeting, they must receive two thirds of the votes of those who belong to the Conference with a deliberative vote. These decrees do not oblige until they have been reviewed by the Apostolic See and lawfully promulgated.
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.