Posted on 01/15/2007 3:27:02 PM PST by NYer
Did not know his track record.
Here are e-mail addresses for the Holy Father and Papal Nuncio:
bededictxvi@vatican.va
nuntiususa@nuntiususa.org
Reference: Luke 18:1-8
Dear incredulous joe,
Hope I see you at the March! We should be there, too!
Archbishop Wuerl will be the main speaker at the March for Life.
Archbishop Wuerl is not a cardinal. I don't know when he will be made one, although it's highly likely that it will come sooner or later. Every Archbishop of Washington has been made a cardinal since the archdiocese's separation from the Archdiocese of Baltimore.
Cardinal McCarrick was created cardinal almost immediately after becoming Archbishop of Washington.
Conversely, Cardinal Hickey was made Archbishop of Washington in 1980, but was created a cardinal until 1988.
Many folks wondered why Pope John Paul II waited eight years to make him a cardinal.
Cardinal Baum, who preceded Cardinal Hickey, was appointed in 1973, and created a cardinal in 1976.
Cardinal O'Boyle was appointed archbishop in 1947, but not made a cardinal until 1967, some twenty years later.
Cardinal O'Boyle was the first resident archbishop of the See, and perhaps because it was a brand-new jurisdiction, that was the reason for the wait.
Archbishop Wuerl is 65, so he will likely serve 10+ years here in Washington.
sitetest
Dear livius,
Archbishop Wuerl is a theological conservative, although he is politically an old-time blue collar, labor union Democrat.
Theologically, he is orthodox. However, he doesn't want to fall out with his good friends in the Democrat Party. I've read before that he considers the idea of disciplining politicians over the issue of abortion to be "politicizing" the faith, especially the Blessed Sacrament, should sanctions include exclusion from receiving the Blessed Sacrament.
He believes that lines of communication with politicians of all stripes should be kept open, and believes that cutting off pro-abort Catholic politicians from the Eucharist will only close those lines of communication.
I understand his position, but I disagree. One can maintain the lines of communication, but still insist that those who create public scandal, and give bad example to other Catholics, possibly leading other Catholics into damnable attitudes and behaviors, may not receive the Eucharist.
But Archbishop Wuerl, like Cardinal McCarrick before him, disagrees with this perspective.
sitetest
I think incredulous joe made a good point, and I realized that is what has been bothering me particularly about this whole thing with Pelosi. He said:
but I believe this thing with Pelosi is a bit of a different animal; while the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin and Mikulski shuck their faith on and off to serve themselves and their needs, Pelosi is actually trying to change the mindset of American Catholics as being a force for the pro-life cause. Pelosi offers a "Catholic alternative".
Teddy Kennedy doesn't even pretend to be a great Catholic, and doesn't really dwell on it much, but Pelosi does hold herself out as an example and implies that her version of Catholicism, with all the hard parts taken out, is just as good as Rome's. She'd make a fine Episcopalian, but she's not honest enough to do that, and instead is going to devote herself to confusing and misleading Catholics for political purposes.
I think Abp Wuerl has a particular duty to respond to her, even if he wants to give Kennedy et al. a pass.
I noticed that the talk he gave was to Communion and Liberation. My experience with them has been that while they are theologically conservative in some ways, they have retained that bizarre Italian attitude towards politics - left-wing, accomodationist, and not particularly pro-life - and don't seem to see any contradictions with some of their other positions.
I do think that Catholic Charities quit offering health insurance per se to its employees in California. That's what their press release after the trial announced. I know some very orthodox institutions who had to change their health care insurance after that decision, I don't remember quite how it works, will have to ask my BIL, but the it was in order to avoid the mandated abc coverage. At the time, it was said that that was what Catholic Charities was doing as well.
Dear livius,
"I noticed that the talk he gave was to Communion and Liberation. My experience with them... not particularly pro-life..."
Well, Archbishop Wuerl is deeply pro-life. He just doesn't see the contradiction between his pro-life principles and permitting deeply pro-abort Catholic politicians from actively participating in the life of the Church and the sacraments.
Unfortunately, at the grass roots level, at the level of in-the-pew Catholicism, I see the contradiction. I know pro-abort Catholics who go to church and have told me, "Well, heck, the bishops don't do anything about Ted Kennedy or [fill in the blank]. They must not be all THAT serious about it! If they don't do anything to these folks, then it must be true that one can be a good Catholic and still be in favor of a woman's choice."
I think they have a good argument, unfortunately.
It is the bishops, as a group, and bishops like Archbishop Wuerl, who must take the largest portion of blame for the defection of millions of Catholics in the United States on the issue of abortion.
We should pray for our bishops, first that they might become more genuinely Catholic, and second, that God may have mercy on them at their particular judgments.
sitetest
"Well, Archbishop Wuerl is deeply pro-life. He just doesn't see the contradiction between his pro-life principles and permitting deeply pro-abort Catholic politicians from actively participating in the life of the Church and the sacraments."
Then he isn't deeply pro-life, is he?
I'm not giving him a pass.
I want to vote for Rudolph Giuliani, because he's tough on crime and would be tough on terrorists. Also, I think he'd WIN. I liked Giuliani as Mayor of New York, and I think he would be good for the country as President.
But, unless he takes the position that, although deeply pro-choice, he will nominate only strict-constructionists (code word for anti-Roe) judges to the Supreme Court and appellate courts, I will not vote for him. Abortion is an absolute issue.
If I hold myself to that standard, then you can bet your sweet bippy I am going to hold any "archbishop" to that same standard. He has the power, and he does not use it to protect life. He is no pro-life, and he doesn't deserve the fig leaf of protection of his dignity.
He won't do what his duty requires of him.
And it leads others astray.
I am not inclined to give him any fig leaf of respectability here. Why does he deserve it?
He is shirking his duty on the most important moral issue of our time, in the most important see in America.
He's a coward.
Good summary. I agree with your observations on this.
Here is the Communion and Liberation's website:
http://www.clonline.org/whatiscl.html
Have you read any of the writings of this group's founder? My first reaction to his writings was "cow manure." They sound like papers we used to write in philosophy class to impress the teacher with our grasp of concepts and how we could use the terms in 500 words or less. Anybody who's ever taken philosophy knows exactly what I mean.
This is from the group's website:
“Communion and Liberation is an ecclesial movement whose purpose is the education to Christian maturity of its adherents and collaboration in the mission of the Church in all the spheres of contemporary life… There is no type of membership card, but only the free participation of persons. The basic instrument for the formation of adherents is weekly catechesis, called 'School of Community.’ " Adherents of what? What do they actually believe? Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me. Plus having the word "liberation" in the group's name sends up a red flag!
Unfortunately, it appears it's not so much the sin as who does the sinning. How in God's name can the Church lay out its rules and expect regular Catholics to follow them when it turns a blind eye to powerful, high-profile Catholics who promote those same sins, and are in positions of power to enable them?
The Church has enough problems, it doesn't need to enable the likes of Pelosi and the Kennedy's.
Dear Vicomte13,
Yes, I believe that Archbishop Wuerl is deeply pro-life.
I understand that you'd like to vote for Mr. Giuliani, but I think that your comments with regard to Mr. Giuliani aren't especially relevant to Archbishop Wuerl.
There is a critical difference between Archbishop Wuerl and Mr. Giuliani: Archbishop Wuerl believes that abortion should be banned by law; Mr. Giuliani believes that the "right" to abortion is guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
If you'd like to argue that some of Archbishop Wuerl's actions (or lack of action, in this case) work against his belief and desire that abortion should be banned by law, well, gee whiz, that's what I said.
However, I don't think that Archbishop Wuerl would agree with me (or you). I think that he believes that his method is the best way to ultimately persuade pro-abort Catholics to come back to a pro-life position. I think he's wrong. But I think he thinks it, nonetheless.
I believe that he's deeply pro-life. But I think he's also wrong in what he's doing in this regard.
"He won't do what his duty requires of him."
I agree. I think I more or less implied that.
"And it leads others astray."
I agree. I think I actually said that pretty explicitly.
"I am not inclined to give him any fig leaf of respectability here."
I don't think I gave him much of a fig leaf, if any. I said that he and like-minded bishops are responsible for the "largest portion of blame for the defection of millions of Catholics in the United States on the issue of abortion."
"He is shirking his duty on the most important moral issue of our time, in the most important see in America."
I agree. I think that's what I said.
"He's a coward."
I don't know whether or not he's a coward. He may be. Or not. He may sincerely believe that his approach is the right one, on principled grounds. However, I wouldn't be surprised if his views aren't at least partially colored by the desire to be accepted by a certain sort.
And that would be at least tinged with a bit of cowardice.
sitetest
This lack of conviction makes me want to cry.
Well, you make some good points. I'm willing to wait and see because the Archbishop may possibly have misunderstood the situation or may have been somewhat misreported.
But I won't wait too long. If this becomes a pattern, then he is going to lose the support of faithful Catholics in the Church.
If, as Sitetest says, he will be the speaker at the next pro-life rally, then sooner or later, and preferably sooner, he is going to have to decide whether he will speak up for the Catholic faith of which he is a shepherd, or whether he will fail to do his public duty.
This isn't easy. The Archbishop of Washington, DC, is obviously under more political pressure than most. But that just means that the bishop has to stand up more than most to the pressures of his job. He's going to be in the spotlight, and we'll soon see what kind of a job he does.
Dear Cicero,
"Well, you make some good points. I'm willing to wait and see because the Archbishop may possibly have misunderstood the situation or may have been somewhat misreported."
I don't think so.
Then-Bishop Wuerl identified himself as a partisan of the viewpoint of Cardinal McCarrick concerning pro-abort Catholic politicians - which is that no sanction should be taken against them.
It'd be nice if he reversed course, but no one should hold his breath.
sitetest
I'll be watching what happens, but I have a feeling in the pit of my stomach that I already know what will happen.
Here's to hoping I am wrong!
Dear Vicomte13,
"I'll be watching what happens, but I have a feeling in the pit of my stomach that I already know what will happen.
"Here's to hoping I am wrong!"
I don't think that you're wrong to think that Archbishop Wuerl will continue to neglect his duty to publicly sanction pro-abort Catholics.
I just don't think that means he isn't pro-life.
It just means that he doesn't understand (whether unwittingly or not) the consequences of his actions.
sitetest
Has Wuerl ever disciplined ANY Catholic on abortion issues?
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.