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.
**Bishop cites "national impact" of denying politicians Communion **
Haven't read the article, but I chuckled at the headline. Good heavens, I would certainly hope there would be a "national impact" with many more babies living and not being aborted! Politicians will need to listen.
(Now, I'll read the article.) LOL!
&&"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."**
Which ever approach they take may the bishops grow spines of iron!
>>>>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.
Bishop Hurl referred to this proceedure as the "no politician left behind" measure, as it would ensure that no bishop anywhere could ever deny communion to anyone.
patent
Could it be that he really thinks we are all such dumbed down idiots? Yes, why of course he does. His contempt for the laity has been as consistent as his contempt fot the Magisterium and his contempt for the occupant of the Chair of St. Peter.
I think it is time for some of us, citing Christifideles laici to issue counter statements to this 'garbagy' nonsense from the USCCB.
Remonstrations R Us.
The McCarrick task force gave an extensive interim report to the bishops in June ...Extensive interim report!!?? What alternate universe does Catholic News Service live in? Cardinal McCarrick totally misrepresented the instructions from then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
Repeat a lie often enough...
What the Bishop is proposing, it would appear, is a set of mechanisms to insure that the chance of *any* politician actually being denied communion is slim to none. From the article:
"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."
To translate. If I read this correctly, one alternative is to make sure that before any politician is actually denied communion, a Bishop or group of Bishops would have to secure a 2/3 majority of Bishops (presumably the USCCB) before acting.
Given the current cast of luminaries on the USCCB, what do you think the chances are of getting a majority, let alone a supermajority? About the same chance of winning the Powerball lottery perhaps?
The other alternative is not much better. To quote the article: "The less formal approach would require all bishops to agree not to make such decisions without prior consultation through procedures agreed by the conference."
OK. The USCCB meets I believe twice per year. I can see how this "procedure" is going to work. Proposed denial of communion would have to be presented at conference number one. There would probably be a delay of action until the offending politician had a chance to respond. So we're at conference number 2. There would of course be a time of deliberation, so it would probably stretch to conference number 3. Those of you counting months will note that any action under this scenario wouldn't be taken until 12 if not 18 months after the fact. And election cycles last how long in the U.S.? A few months perhaps?
Appropriate national consistency? No. What this set of proposals looks to be is a way to insure that NO pro-abortion politician will ever actually be denied communion in the U.S. This sudden concern for "consistency" is a sham I fear.
And you know what, it won't just be the more liberal Roman Catholic Bishops imposing their lack of intestinal fortitude solely upon their Roman Catholic bretheren. It will be the liberal Bishops imposing this on ALL Catholic Bishops in the U.S., given that the USCCB includes the eastern churches as well.
**So what will happen to Jesus while they're consulting?**
Excellent question.............Profaning the Blessed Sacrament for instance................
Surely Wuerl and the minions don't mean the communal exercise of that episcopal responsibility in communion with the Pope -- without which communal in Wuerl's statement is just empty, Episcopalian claptrap.
BTW, can the Western Catholics join you in leaving the USCCB?
Change must come from the grassroots and it will happen, like anything positive in American Catholicism, over the heads of the bishops.
The score form the last US bishop conference when the pro-death "Catholic" politicians were discussed was something like 7 honest bishops out of 200. So it is clear who this plea for unity designed to help.
When lay Catholics get tired of the Eucharist being profaned, things will change.
"BTW, can the Western Catholics join you in leaving the USCCB?"
Sure. But please be sure and leave the canon lawyers and radical feminists behind if you would.
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.