Posted on 01/15/2007 3:27:02 PM PST by NYer
Dear Vicomte13,
I don't know.
However, his statements indicate that that is foreign to his own beliefs on how to go about being a bishop.
sitetest
I'm sorry to hear it. That's the last thing we need in Washington, which is a key post.
CL members are very devoted to their founder, Msgr Giussani, who IMHO is like any European intellectual of his generation - stuffed to the brim with words, and very given to lengthy musings that are either not very meaningful, or so laden with terms that the writer uses in a special way that they have almost no meaning to anyone outside the group. In addition, they have come up with their own particular translations into English of these words, and since the translation is usually the Italian word with an anglicized spelling, as you can imagine, it makes no sense whatsoever. The few times I've read it, I've found it pretentious and cumbersome.
I have known a number of CL members, and many of them are very nice people, but they are very left-wing politically and their theology is so convoluted that it is really hard to say what they follow (other than whatever it is they believe Msgr Giussani has said!). They're like Neo-Catechumenate in Spain. Young university students like them, they give these people a feeling of community and support, and they do not reject the Church or any of its teachings. However, they have their own liturgies and practices (especially Neo Catechumenate), their own theological vocabulary, and they form a very tight group. I don't know whether this is good or bad in the long run.
JPII encouraged both of these groups, although I believe BXVI has demanded a bit more liturgical orthodoxy from NeoCatechumenate, which had a problem in its non-existent formula of consecration. Regardless, I think they are still pretty influential under BXVI.
Pretentious is definitely the word!
You say that the ones you know are left-wing politically, and with the word "Liberation" in their name, I'm not surprised. If their theology is convoluted, it could mean anything; conversely, if it were orthodox it would be simple and clear. Just because they haven't rejected the Church or its teachings does not mean they have not twisted them, either. I thought our Holy Father strongly discourages "Liberation Theology." Why is Abp. Wuerl involved with this group?
This is not exactly "Liberation Theology." It's more like standard European university liberal thought, which is vaguely Socialist, very statist and, of course, anti-American. They dress it up with the incomprehensible and wordy musings of their founder, or rapturous articles about Pasolini, etc.
Abp Wuerl may not be heavily involved - he gave a talk to them, so maybe it simply means that they paid his airfare and he talked. But given his attitude towards politics, according to everyone here who has known him in his previous job, I wouldn't be surprised if he's at least sympathetic to some of their positions. Again, they're not a group like "We Are Church." They're not actively opposed to any Church teaching and seem to support the Papacy, etc., but I think their European academic liberal mindset makes it very hard for them to sort out, shall we say, priorities. Some people do pass through it, however, and go into the religious life or find some other form of life that is more traditional.
I view the decision of a Bishop to withhold the Eucharist from pro-abort politicians as their very own matter of conscience. It's not something that I would care to be put in the position of doing. I don't like the idea of potentially setting up a confrontation of sorts, which may not play out well, at the Altar.
That being said, I also would not take issue with a Bishop who decided to make a stand against these defiant creatures, and provided some measure and direction for how this might be implemented to his priests and extraordinary ministers.
I've heard good things about Burke and several other Church leaders in the Midwest. I'd almost be curious to see how such a chastisement would play out here in the east. I've actually never heard of a pro-abort politico being denied the Sacrament, under any circumstance. I think it would have little effect on Speaker Pelosi, Kerry or Durbin, but it might strike a chord in some of the "in the pew" Catholics. It would send a message.
I'm unsure how Wuerl could be otherwise Theologically conservative, while also being silent on the subject of abortion - one seems to run counter to the other.
I've grown weary of the whole trade union/social justice liberal ideologues. While I am surprised to hear that Wuerl is older than I had presumed (the Bishop looks to be in his early fifties) Wuerl's 65 years do not gain him access into a bloc of the Democratic party which has been effectively dead for 25 or more years. If he were in his 80's I might give the Bishop a little space for embracing the political vision that my mother adhered to until her death. No dice for Bishop Wuerl. I suspect that he came of age, politically, after the foundation of the modern Democratic Party, the Party of Death, had been laid. If he were a Democrat early he should have distanced himself from them, like so many other Catholics have done over the last three decades. Our Church needs leadership in this area, not blind loyalty to a political movement that no longer exists.
I'd like to be open minded - to wait and see about Wuerl - but I'm afraid that he is going to need to speak in a very clear voice next week to satisfy me. Seems that he has already given "Nancy" and the gang a free pass, in as much as he has stated that he will not do anything to discipline his wayward flock. Sort of makes one wonder what it would take?
In the end, I think it is more or less up to us, the rank and file laity, the faithfully flawed, the youth leaders and catechists to keep Nancy's emboldened Nuevo Garde of pro-abortion Catholics in check. Whether, with gentle persuasion or righteous anger. I feel certain any in this thread could identify the gifts the Lord has bestowed upon us.
As I will be in attendance next week when Wuerl speaks I will let you know what I think. If I am not satisfied I will find his subordinates and tweak them. I will do this with courtesy and respect, but I will aslo make them defend that which is indefensible.
It seems a little crazy to suggest, but if you happen to be at the March for Life in DC. Let me know how I might identify you in the off chance that we might meet. I will be chaperoning a group of 30 to 40 middle school students from St. Thomas More in Buckeystown (this is where I used to teach). We will be wearing gold scarves and I will be wearing a green (yes, green) Baltimore Orioles cap unless it is bitter cold, in which case I will doff a blue Diocese of Baltimore Pro-life knit cap.
I hope I see some FReepers there. It's going to be a great day!
Dear incredulous joe,
"I'm unsure how Wuerl could be otherwise Theologically conservative, while also being silent on the subject of abortion - one seems to run counter to the other."
He isn't silent on the issue of abortion.
He just feels no need to discipline pro-abort Catholic politicians.
Unlike you, I won't hesitate to say that the bishops should generally ban pro-abort Catholic politicians from the Blessed Sacrament. Folks, regular Catholics in the pew, are being led astray by the overwhelming number of bishops who do nothing.
I'll be at the March on Monday. Not sure what I'll be wearing at this point. I'll think of something by which you can identify me.
sitetest
I'll post an "FR" or FReep" someplace on my person, possibly in reflective tape.
Actually, being able to meet someone in the masses will be something else altogether.
Interesting analysis of Wuerl. I didn't realize he was that old, either, but it's true, he's not old enough to be the last of the New Deal Dem generation or anything that might let him off the hook.
I am involved in my (small but valiant) parish pro-life march here, so I won't be going to DC this year. Good luck to you and your 30-40 kids! I hope it's not super cold, but even if it is, that won't bother the kids. This is really a great thing for them to do.
Don't forget to report back to us!
In the early days of the annual march for life there were no bishops at all, and few priests. The organizers were lay people.
As I'm sure you know, a black woman was the earliest leader, and there were at least some non-Catholics involved, though relatively few. The priests and bishops started to get on board when it became evident that this thing was not going to go away. First a few pro-life priests, then a few pro-life bishops, then maybe a few embarrassed bishops who couldn't afford to get left out. That last is conjecture.
But he can't vote for the next pope after 70, right? Or is it 80?
Dear ichabod1,
Cardinals may vote in a papal conclave until they turn 80.
sitetest
The Church was involved, just not the clergy. There were a few courageous and committed ones, but many of the rest were either not particularly pro-life to begin with, or under a lot of pressure from non-pro-life peers. I think a few high-profile bishops did a lot to help, though; Cardinal O'Connor, for example, really energized people, even though the clergy in his own diocese were anything but cooperative. A few elderly priests who kept getting arrested for praying the Rosary outside abortion facilities - and other than that, silence and even flat out resistance to the message. Very strange.
Thank you for posting this and pinging me to it! Congratulations to you and your kids. It is an incredible experience. We had a little march here in St. Augustine (our first one; before we just had a rather quiet vigil) and we got about 300 people. That's pretty impressive for a small place like this. Most of the passersby, including our many tourists, were either positive or, if opposed, weren't too gross about it. No spitting, punching or shrieking, as happened on pro-life marches when I lived in NYC!
I bet the kids were thrilled and I am sure they will be coming back next year too. I think I will try to find a bus from Florida to come up with, as well. Or maybe Roe v Wade will be overturned by then? Miracles do happen - although I'm not sure there's a case on the horizon at the moment. But I sure hope Bush gets at least one more appointment, and that might make it possible.
The Church was definitely involved--at the lay level. Lay Catholics were there and active from the start. I know, as I was part of it.
Cardinal O'Connell was very supportive in the early days, and spoke at that rally I mentioned.
In the course of his speech he made this pledge: That the Archdiocese of New York would be willing to care for ANY unwanted child, would give shelter to the others, care for their babies, and see to their adoption.
Those were also the years when Cardinal O'Connell used to visit AIDS victims in New York Hospitals, and personally wash some of them, while the press accused Catholics of homophobia.
The press never reported his offer to care for unwanted mothers and their babies, but continued to accuse right-to-lifers of doing nothing to help unwanted children. Unlike Hillary "It's fer the chilluns" Clinton.
Dear Cicero--I believe you mean Cardinal O'Connor
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.