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.
I think the Reader's Digest version of this article is that this Bishop wants to bury this issue in committee rather than follow the Holy Father's direct instructions.
Sometimes it's because those heads have become irremediably separated from the REST of the heterodox--Bishop or otherwise.
"Bishops at a Turning Point" (Fr. Richard John Neuhaus)
*********************************
A Beleaguered Cardinal
After the speeches by Cardinal Keeler and Archbishop Levada, Cardinal McCarrick spoke to the assembly. It had become obvious that the bishops were not prepared to wait until after the elections for his task-force report. The question, which had in prior weeks and months become publicly entangled with the John Kerry campaign, had to be addressed now and addressed clearly. McCarrick told the bishops that "the battles for human life and dignity and for the weak and vulnerable should be fought not at the communion rail but in the public square." (One conservative wag indicated his surprise and pleasure that there are still communion rails in Washington.) McCarrick declared that, while "life comes first," there are other issues that "demand our attention and action as well," such as "faith and family, education and work, housing and health care." He continued, "We must not allow ourselves to become used in partisan politics either by those who dispute our teaching on life and dignity or those who reduce our teaching to a particular issue or partisan cause." The reference to "our" teaching—as distinct from the teaching of moral reason, natural law, and the Church’s magisterium—struck an odd note. As did the suggestion that those who concentrate on protecting the unborn are somehow "reducing" the Church’s teaching to a partisan cause, while pro-abortion Catholics are innocent of partisan politics.
The unhappy and beleaguered Cardinal went on in this vein, bringing to mind familiar liberal abuses of the metaphor of a "seamless garment" of moral urgencies. "The fundamental issue is human life and dignity," he asserted, "which is threatened in so many ways—preeminently by abortion, but also by euthanasia, cloning, widespread hunger and lack of health care, by war and violence, and by crime and the death penalty." The list can be readily extended in emptying "preeminently" of preeminence. "Our task is not winning elections," he said, but, with an eye to elections, he noted that attempts to impose penalties on Catholic politicians "have often been counterproductive." Things took an interesting twist when he told the bishops that he had been in contact with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by letter and telephone. "He has offered some observations for our work," Cardinal McCarrick said, "which he specifically asked not to be published, but which I wish to share with you." According to McCarrick, the burden of Ratzinger’s message was that he has complete confidence that the American bishops know best how to deal with these questions, that the proper approach is one of dialogue and persuasion, not discipline, and that, not to put too fine a point on it, Cardinal Ratzinger agrees with Cardinal McCarrick. He did allow that Ratzinger recognizes that, "as in the case of a person in an invalid marriage, there are circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied."
The Ratzinger letter and how McCarrick used it is the subject of lively discussion. No bishop wanted to say that McCarrick "misrepresented" Ratzinger’s message but, as one put it, "The charitable thing to say is that he did not tell us the whole truth." It appears, although it is not certain, that the letter was sent only to McCarrick and the papal nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, who was, of course, present at the meeting. At least a few bishops, however, were apprised of the full text and were less than pleased with McCarrick’s presentation of what Ratzinger had to say. When the full text was later made public, first in an Italian newspaper, McCarrick suggested to the press that there were other communications with Ratzinger that put the letter in context, justifying the interpretation he had offered the bishops. Back at the June meeting, the bishops had, despite McCarrick’s resistance, made up their minds. There needed to be a clear and firm statement that unmistakably underscored the utterly distinctive status of abortion and euthanasia in Catholic teaching, and that approved, but did not mandate, specific pastoral approaches, including the denial of Communion to the obdurate.
The drafting of the statement was assigned to Cardinal McCarrick’s task force, but not before the bishops took the precaution of adding Cardinal George and Archbishop Chaput to the drafting team. McCarrick was manifestly unhappy with the turn of events, but the others stitched together a statement that, while hardly seamless, managed to take into account appropriate cautions while affirming an assertive course in dealing with offending public figures, including the denial of Communion when other measures have failed. One can only speculate on how the statement would have been different had Cardinal McCarrick more accurately communicated Cardinal Ratzinger’s message.
Striking Differences
The Ratzinger letter speaks decisively to those who misleadingly weave a "seamless garment" of Catholic concerns:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not with regard to abortion and euthanasia. . . .
Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation [i.e. knowing, free, and deliberate cooperation] becomes manifest (understood in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist [emphasis added].
Citing an earlier statement of the Holy See, Cardinal Ratzinger continues:
When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it." This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin [emphasis added].
In view of the striking differences between Ratzinger’s letter and what he had told the bishops on June 15, Cardinal McCarrick was in an awkward position. He did later elicit and make public a letter from Ratzinger, dated July 9, referring not to McCarrick’s position but to the statement actually adopted by the bishops. "That statement is very much in harmony with the general principles" set forth in his earlier letter which, writes Ratzinger, was "sent as a fraternal service—to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue—in order to assist the American bishops in their related discussion and determinations." This is a classic instance of observing what in the Vatican is called bella figura—in this case, reproaching by subtle indirection. How could Ratzinger’s earlier letter have assisted the bishops in their discussion and deliberations if it was not shared with them? Which is precisely what McCarrick did not do and claimed he was instructed not to do. There is also a nicety in the phrase "very much in harmony." If I ask whether you agree with something I have said, you might answer, "Yes, very much." Or you might answer, "Well, very much"—meaning to a large extent—and then you might go on to qualify that by referring to agreement in "general principles."
In fact, there are obvious differences between the bishops’ statement, "Catholics in Political Life," and Cardinal Ratzinger’s articulation of "the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue." Most notably, what is optional in the former is mandated in the latter. Nonetheless, the June statement is to be welcomed. It acknowledged the worries of the timid while affirming the course decided upon by the likes of Archbishop Burke and Archbishop Myers and emboldening others to follow their example. There is every reason to believe that the statement would have been more firm and coherent if, as Cardinal Ratzinger intended, the bishops had had the benefit of his letter. As several have pointed out, the connection between Communion and communio, which is addressed by the statement, involves much more than the current and necessary concern about errant Catholic politicians. In recent decades the practice has become widespread that everyone attending Mass receives Communion. The consistent Catholic teaching, however, is that only those who are in a state of grace and are rightly disposed spiritually should receive. Practice to the contrary has resulted in, among other things, a dramatic decline in recourse to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, a decline approaching desuetude in some parts of the Church. It is hoped that the clarification precipitated by the controversy about Catholic politicians might turn into a "teaching moment" with respect to the sacramental order of Catholic Christianity.
And so one may see the June meeting as a possible turning point in the leadership of the American bishops. As Cardinal George has underscored, it is not a turn against the bishops conference but a turn toward reconceptualizing the purpose of the conference and its supporting institution, the USCCB. The key to the turning is the readiness of bishops to be the teachers and shepherds they are ordained to be. After a few more meetings like that of Denver, there may be substantial reason to believe that a new generation of bishops is prepared to lead.
Post #43 was for you too, but I left your name out of the To: line. Sorry.
Siobhan: "Remonstrations R Us." Very nice! Good for you!!!!
No the USCCB does not have canonical authority to do that.
"I think the Reader's Digest version of this article is that this Bishop wants to bury this issue in committee rather than follow the Holy Father's direct instructions."
Bingo!
First of all, thanks for the thought provoking post. I wanted to think about this for a bit before responding.
I agree with you in part and respectfully disagree with you in another.
From your post: "If all serious Catholics left the Latin Rite, the Latin Rite will be a playground for fake Catholics like the Kennedys."
I respectfully disagree. Faux Catholics are attracted to the institutional church. The pretty buildings, the treasure, the money, the power, the votes. If those things go away, most of the "sunshine Catholics" and other hangers-on will leave. If you'll forgive the biological analogy, parasitism assumes a host.
"That will help the Eastern Rites to gain prominence in the West, but it will exacerbate the problems in the Latin Catholicism."
I think you're misunderstanding my point of view on the eastern and western churches. As if you couldn't tell, I'm clearly in the eastern Catholic camp. Zeal of the converted and all, dontchaknow.
Anyhow, I'm not advocating and would not favor a wholesale exodus of latin rite Catholics to the eastern churches. For a couple of reasons. First, the selfish reason: I think the problems that the latin rite church is experiencing would follow into the eastern churches in short order. Second, as I learn more about eastern Catholicism and the underlying philosophies it becomes more and more clear to me that eastern Catholicism is very, well, eastern in mindset. Frankly, I don't think it's for all or even most latin rite Catholics.
So while I would love to see more latin rite Catholics take a liturgical "vacation" and visit us in the eastern Catholic churches and perhaps develop an appreciation for the liturgical treasures in their own midst, I don't believe that "heading east" is the answer for a lot of devout yet frustrated latin rite Catholics.
Ah, OK. I indeed misunderstood your call to swim to the Eastern bank.
Regarding fake Catholics, they are two groups. We mostly think of the Kerrys and the Kennedys, but the bulk of them are very liberal rank-and-file. They are big on social causes, which they interpret in a leftist way, relaxed liturgical ways, women ordination, they are lukewarm if not hostile to pro-life movement, -- you know the type. They are not attracted to the institutional church. Those are the types to whom the Latin rite parishes will be ceded if the orthodox Catholics went East. Those parishes then will be happy to commune with the Kerrys.
But I agree, not many will actually switch rites, so it is a moot point.
Agreed. One is either drawn into the depth and reverence of these liturgies, embracing its historicity or is left to ponder the experience. For Roman Catholics who complain that 45 minutes is too long for a Mass, the Eastern Churches would really eat into their "tee off" time.
I would love to see more latin rite Catholics take a liturgical "vacation" and visit us in the eastern Catholic churches and perhaps develop an appreciation for the liturgical treasures in their own midst, I don't believe that "heading east" is the answer for a lot of devout yet frustrated latin rite Catholics.
This is where one goes when they seek a deeper liturgical experience, through which to intensify their relationship with Christ. It's worth the visit ... in fact, it's worth 3 visits. Over the next decade, I tend to believe the Eastern Churches will blossom in the West. They do not seek to 'evangelize' other catholics. But as RKBA Democrat pointed out, all Latin Rite catholics should make an effort to experience the different Eastern Catholic liturgies.
That's certainly a factor. Folks who can't wait to run from church 2 seconds after Mass will not mesh well with eastern Catholics whose Divine Liturgy lasts well over an hour, not including the very important eating and fellowship afterward. It's at least 2 and 1/2 hours in my experience.
Another issue I think that many American latin rite Catholics would find challenging is the philosophical perspective of the eastern churches on this whole idea of "rugged individualism." Our culture tends to embrace individualism to the point of making it something of a secular religion. The concept of individualism is somewhat anathema to eastern Catholics, particularly in the Byzantine rite churches. Again, another reason why I don't think that actually becoming a practicing eastern Catholic would appeal to the majority of American Catholics or Americans in general.
But I DO think that eastern Catholicism will appeal to a larger minority of Americans than it currently does. And I think you're right that we're going to see a blossoming in the eastern churches in the next decade or so. We've already discussed this on other threads and I think we're already seeing it at our respective parishes.
Absolutely. As a former Orthodox I agree. My point, however, is that any parish-switching, while often completely justified, cedes ground to the cafeteria Catholics. I don't think serious Catholics should switch parishes, let alone rites, at the first sign of liberalism in their parish, as leaving the parish is a weapon one can only use once. At the same time, once a parish is beyond redemption, such as, for example, a parish where pro-death politicians commune, one must declare his reasons for leaving and then go.
Proper comparison is between Traditional Latin Mass, or properly celebrated Novus Ordo Mass, and Byzantine (or other Eastern) Rite. The 45 minute Catholicism Lite is not representative of the Latin Rite, not even of post-Vatican II Latin Rite, even though it is its common perversion.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Since when do Bishops have a compelling interest in maintaining a separation of Church and State?
My question is why would a Catholic seek a career as the elected representative of a body of people who have demonstrated a functional belligerence to Catholic doctrine and practice?
Isn't this analogous to an Orthodox Rabbi aspiring to a career as a Christian missionary?
Sad to say, I don't think denying the politicians the Host will have any actual impact on voting numbers ... America is now well into secular rejection of God's authority with or without the Church.
It may even help someone like Kerry. But that is not the point: communion is, as the name implies, an act of fellowship as well as a contact with Christ. By taking communion, the workers in the interest of death hurt me as a Catholic. We have a right to defend ourselves and our institutions.
"Proper comparison is between Traditional Latin Mass, or properly celebrated Novus Ordo Mass, and Byzantine (or other Eastern) Rite. The 45 minute Catholicism Lite is not representative of the Latin Rite, not even of post-Vatican II Latin Rite, even though it is its common perversion."
Agreed. Unfortunately, many devout latin rite Catholics in what I term "reprobate diocese" are having a bit of a problem in obtaining a properly celebrated mass. Worse, many of our more mainstream latin rite Catholics wouldn't know the difference.
I do think the problem of liturgical abuse in the latin rite church is an issue of convenience more than anything. You can find a valid Mass if you look.
One of the advantages that the eastern churches have is that the liturgy seems more uniform, at least in the churches utilizing the Byzantine liturgy. The script is the same across the eparch. It changes with the time of the church year as it should, but otherwise it's pretty much set. Significant changes or omissions would be obvious.
I also think the eastern churches have a real advantage in that we have a lot of deacons and we still have ordained minor orders; it's tougher to make a significant liturgical change when you have several people to consult with. Especially when those folks are already well educated in the liturgical traditions of the church.
Bishop Wuerl obviously is more concerned about the Democrat Party than the Catholic Church. It's good to know where his loyalties lie...but in Pittsburgh, this isn't surprising.
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.