Posted on 05/07/2009 3:04:54 AM PDT by markomalley
Washington D.C., May 5, 2008 / 06:19 pm (CNA).- Archbishop of Washington Donald W. Wuerl has expanded his previous comments about politicians who support permissive abortion laws but also present themselves to receive Holy Communion. Though he insisted that support for abortion is wrong, he said that convincing and persuading national Catholic pro-abortion political figures is best done in their respective home dioceses, rather than in the Archdiocese of Washington.
Writing in his archdiocesan newspaper The Catholic Standard, Archbishop Wuerl said that both Catholic citizens and Catholic politicians must follow Catholic moral convictions. “Just as Catholic voters are not asked to leave aside the most deeply held moral convictions of our faith when they enter a voting booth, so Catholic elected officials are not asked to deposit the moral and ethical convictions of the Church at the door of Congress or at the State Assembly where they serve,” he wrote. The archbishop reiterated Catholic teaching on abortion, saying, “The teaching is clear. Abortion and support for abortion are wrong. No informed Catholic can claim that either action is free of moral implications, and certainly no one should be led to believe, because of someone else's voting record, that this teaching about abortion is uncertain.” The archbishop said Catholics’ political actions must be based on the natural moral law and respect for “the most basic of all human rights,” the right to life. Archbishop Wuerl said that he, along with priests and bishops nationwide, has taught “with persistence and insistence” that abortion is an intrinsic evil. He noted that the Archdiocese of Washington sponsors a Mass and Rally for Life each January. He characterized as an “altogether different yet related issue” how to respond to public officeholders who support abortion legislation. He said that a June 2004 statement from the Catholic bishops of the United States titled “Catholics in Political Life” taught that the responsibility to assess the situation and to apply canon law within a bishop’s own diocese “clearly rests with the individual bishop.” “Bishops may arrive at different conclusions based on their local situations,” Archbishop Wuerl said. The U.S. bishops’ document, he noted, was confirmed in 2004 by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is now Pope Benedict XVI.
While emphasizing that the archdiocese would continue to teach about the “evil of abortion,” he said that national political figures must be persuaded and convinced in their home dioceses. “A decision regarding the refusal of Holy Communion to an individual is one that should be made only after clear efforts to persuade and convince the person that their actions are wrong and bear moral consequences,” the archbishop said. “Presumably this is done in the home diocese where the bishops and priests, the pastors of souls, engage the members of their flock in this type of discussion. In the case of public figures who serve in Washington as representatives of other parts of the nation, this dialogue and any decisions would take place within their home diocese.” Archbishop Wuerl said he had always respected the “role of the local Church.” For that reason, he wrote, “I have not accepted the suggestions that the Archdiocese of Washington or episcopal conferences have some particular role that supersedes the authority of an individual bishop in his particular Church.” |
What would improve this statement would be if he identified Catholic politicians who reside within his archdiocese whose political positions are at odds with the Church (don't know which ones there are as of now, with Connie Morella gone. Mikulski's home is within the Baltimore Archdiocese...but the point remains)
Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi CommunionAccording to his critics, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington is insufficiently outraged – chronically, and on multiple fronts. The latest complaint is that he's not exactly apoplectic over President Obama's upcoming commencement address at Notre Dame. (He doesn't think a Catholic university ought to honor a pro-choice politician, but doesn't see disinviting him, either.)During the more than two years that Nancy Pelosi has been Speaker of the House, Wuerl has been under constant pressure to bar her from receiving Communion. Why, he was asked recently, can't he be more like that nice Raymond Burke, who as archbishop of St. Louis told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that unless she fell in line on abortion, she couldn't join the Communion line on Sunday? Instead of following Burke's example, Wuerl wrote a relatively pointed editorial, published in the diocesan newspaper a couple of months back, calling a halt to the whole game of Who's More Catholic? "Incrimination of others has become a hallmark among some groups and individuals in the Catholic Church in our country today,'' he wrote. But "the intensity of one's opinion is not the same as the truth. Speaking out of anger does not justify falsehood.'' So how did we get here, anyway, with the peace-and-justice Catholic faction I'm more in line with so permanently at odds with the Church of the Republican Party? Is the polarization really any worse now than it's been at any other time since Vatican II? And is there any way out of this standoff? In an hourlong interview in the pastoral center where he works, Wuerl talked about why he thinks we've gotten angrier, and way more inclined to vent. I hadn't met Wuerl before, and much like his predecessor, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, he's a gentle presence, which I guess is part of the knock against him. As family fights go, I ask him, is this one more intense now than at any time in the last oh, 45 years?
He thinks it is: "There's always been a certain amount of that, but the polarization in our culture seems to flow into our Church. It's the society in which we live – it's so easy to be anonymous. We have websites, YouTube and You Face'' – Facebook, I think he means – "so people can unburden themselves.'' On the question of who should and should not be allowed to receive Communion, people are all too happy to be quoted by name, aren't they? Sure, he says, because this is also "an age of polemicists'' who "seem to think they're not bound by the commandment, 'You shall not bear false witness.' The glorification of pundits contributes'' to a world in which "you're not bound by the rules of decency.'' He's beyond sorry to see Communion wielded as a weapon: "That's the new way now to make your point. We never – the Church just didn't use Communion this way. It wasn't a part of the way we do things, and it wasn't a way we convinced Catholic politicians to appropriate the faith and live it and apply it; the challenge has always been to convince people.'' Whereas sanctioning them, in his view, has the opposite effect. For bishops, "there are two different approaches'' to bring Catholic politicians in line with Church teaching. "One is the pastoral, teaching mode, and the other is the canonical approach'' – the legal approach, in other words. He doesn't think it's a very close call: "I have yet to see where the canonical approach has changed anyone's heart.'' Has he seen his approach change anyone's heart? He smiles, and says one has to take the long view: "The teaching approach that we've used for centuries requires patience, persistence and insistence, but I believe if we teach our people, we will not have a problem with our politicians.'' Of Pelosi in particular, he cites two big reasons he hasn't and won't try to keep her from receiving Communion: First, "there's a question about whether this canon'' – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.''
And second? Pelosi, as a San Franciscan, "isn't part of my flock!'' Moving on to the issue of embryonic stem cell research, I wonder if Obama's position is really all that different from Bush's. Though Obama has loosened restrictions on federally funded research, he hasn't done away with them, and Bush, too, allowed a limited amount of study. So is the difference really quantitative rather than qualitative? No, Wuerl says, it isn't, in part because the terms of the stem-cell debate have been set by the conversation over abortion. Is that conversation ever going to get us anywhere? "I would hope that with quiet, articulate persuasion, hearts can be changed. When we were growing up, one way we knew to pay attention was when my father spoke very softly and slowly; then we knew we were in trouble.'' I tell him that in my own experience, that hasn't worked at all; no matter how mildly or respectfully expressed, my pro-life views only infuriate my fellow liberals, who literally can't hear me when I talk about abortion. Meanwhile, I can't fathom why the party of science – my party, in all other regards – maintains that it's only a baby if and when we say it's a baby.
"Oh, I think we've been making progress,'' Wuerl assures me. "There was just a setback with the distraction of Communion. But sonograms are an enormous support. I still remember the day I got the call from our niece and she said, 'We just saw our baby!' She called me on my cell phone, which is really supposed to be for emergencies. But back to what we said earlier, [proponents of abortion rights] have to keep the child anonymous. The party of science also couldn't bring itself to recognize that an embryo is the beginning of human life.'' What most worries him about Obama's shift on stem cell research, he says, is "the perception that this administration is moving us to a point where people who conscientiously object to taking human life'' might lose their jobs in clinics and hospitals as a result. That's a fear expressed by opponents of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate restrictions on abortion and might – or might not – force pro-life heath care workers to choose between their jobs and their beliefs. Only, FOCA has zero chance of passing, or even being introduced, doesn't it? Wuerl strongly disagrees, closing his eyes and tapping his finger on the conference table in front of him as he argues, "FOCA will probably be passed, but not using the name FOCA. It will be repackaged so it will have a new name, and they'll do it step by step. Wasn't it Huey Long who, when asked whether Fascism would come to America, said, "Of course not. But when it does, it will be called the Fight against Fascism.'' He also disagrees when I equate Notre Dame's invitation to pro-choice Obama to its past invitations to George W. Bush, as enthusiastic a proponent of capital punishment as is possible to find, or to Ronald Reagan only a few months after the murder of Catholic nuns by Salvadoran death squads funded by the government his administration was supporting. "The big difference is that abortion is the defining issue of this generation," Wuerl says. "Those other situations you're talking about could have gone either way. On the death penalty, the church has said it's not necessary, but it hasn't said it's intrinsic evil.'' Then the famously mild Wuerl goes all fire and brimstone on me – in his smiling, bookish way: "In his circles of Hell, Dante places the people with sins of passion at the very brim – barely burned. But at the core are those who sinned against the truth.'' And circling back to where we began, he says he sees a lot of sinning against the truth in our squabbling over who is and is not fit to call himself a Catholic. Yet in the very long run, he remains optimistic, both as a Catholic and as an American: "One of the best parts of our nation is if we're left to struggle with an issue long enough, we'll get it right. The truth wins; you just have to wait a long time, and that's why the Catholic Church feels so comfortable preaching and teaching, preaching and teaching, preaching and teaching...We're in it for the long haul.'' |
ping for your lists
This is a dishonest, inaccurate, deceptive, gutless statement.
The duty to deny Communion to public sinners belongs TO THE PASTOR of the congregation where Communion is being received.
There is NO special function belonging to the bishops and priests of the HOME diocese of anyone—except if the person is receiving Communion there. But when Communion is being received in the Archdiocese of Washington, then it is the priests (and bishop) there who have the duty to deny Communion.
Archbishop Raymond Burke’s complete treatment of this issue is available at www.tinyurl.com/canon915
Some key points on the application of Canon 915, including the point that the duty to deny Communion belongs to the PASTOR of the place involved, and NOT the bishop, are in this declaration by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. Read it, and see how misleading and evasive Wuerl is being. www.tinyurl.com/pont915
With due respect, I don't agree with the conclusion you've drawn.
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, made the following statement in his letter, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,"
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal 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 that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
(emphasis mine)
His pastor (implying at the parish (in the diocese) where he is registered) does not equal The pastor (implying the pastor (bishop) of the local parish (diocese) where he works).
You can see this, in that Abp. Wuerl has made a statement that he will support Bp. Finn's decree regarding Sebelius.
(BTW, don't think for a second that I am a Wuerl fan. I'm not. But I am glad to see some progress and some fortitude, no matter how small)
Gutless, I agree.
I wonder, how much cash is the DC church getting to over look the issue?
Did he really say “wrong”? My goodness, that’s divisive!
Whatever the duties of “his pastor,” the obligation to deny Communion to a notorious sinner belongs to ANY minister of Communion wherever the person attempts to receive Communion.
If you will read the Declaration of the Pontifical Council on the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, you will see that consultation between the pastor and the would-be communicant is desirable, but the obligation to deny Communion is NOT contingent on such consultation’s having taken place.
In other words, if Nancy Pelosi comes up the aisle for Communion in Dismal Seepage, Ohio, and the priest recognizes her, he has the duty to deny her Communion—even though he is not “her” pastor and has not spoken to her at any time. Because of her notoriety, the obligation to deny Communion exists, both in order to prevent a sacrilege, and to prevent scandal.
There is NO role for the bishop in this. There is no such thing as a “policy” in one diocese vs. another diocese.
Wuerl’s proper function is not to have a policy, but to explain to his priests what their obligations are. Wuerl has this duty, in particular, because he has been misleading his priests and the public.
It should be clear that the whole business of Sebelius’s bishop having a policy, and Wuerl’s announcement that he will abide by it, is all nonsense. It’s all misdirection and obfuscation. Sebelius’s bishop has decided to obey Canon Law. Wuerl’s policy is that he will obey Canon Law in some cases, and disobey it in others—for instance, when the bishop “back home” won’t obey it.
Catholic Charities would basically have to fold up if not for federal money. The bishops have allowed the Church to become a federal money junkie.
Che bel coraggio! /s
OK...
If you will read the Declaration of the Pontifical Council on the Interpretation of Legislative Texts,
I have
you will see that consultation between the pastor and the would-be communicant is desirable, but the obligation to deny Communion is NOT contingent on such consultation’s having taken place.
The relevant passage is this one:
3. Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.
Keep in mind that the context of the above statement is, CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED
Keeping in mind the context, that is, divorce/remarried Catholics, I read this as follows: if a member of a parish went through a divorce (w/o annulment from the tribunal) and then civilly remarried, the pastor is to counsel the person in question (or, shall we say, the couple in question). If the remarried couple declares that they are living "as brother and sister," then there is no impediment. If, however, the couple tell the pastor to "mind his own business," then the pastor should counsel them to not approach Communion until they regularize their situation. AT THAT POINT, he would instruct the other ordinary and extraordinary ministers to not admit that couple to Holy Communion. (That is the first case) If, on the other hand, he has invited them to counseling, and the couple has refused to appear, the second case would be applicable. In neither instance do I read that an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion should take it upon him or herself to deny communion to a couple who "he/she knows are living in sin" without that guidance.
The word "the Pastor" is used in the Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts because there clearly would not be multiple parishes or dioceses involved (unless you propose having a super double secret list of people to be denied Communion, distributed, with photos, to each and every extraordinary minister of Holy Communion). The word "his Pastor" is used in Cardinal Ratzinger's Worthiness publication because there might be some confusion as to which pastor.
Nancy Pelosi is really not a good example because she is so high profile, but the precedent set can apply to many, many levels...including back-benchers in Congress, state legislators, federal judges, appointees, etc. Niederauer (her Ordinary) has spoken with her. He should speak with her again and lay out the bottom line. As should O'Brien (Mikulski). As should Dolan (Giuliani). Etc. And local ordinaries should speak to their legislators. And individual pastors should enforce this document on divorced/ remarried Catholics.
And I don't like being put in a position to have to defend Wuerl. It makes me feel like I'm voting for McLame again, which is really uncomfortable. But, in this case, he is right to defer to the politician's Ordinary. Sorry.
BTW:
That letter from Ratzinger was written in 2004—before what Abp. Burke calls the “discovery” of Canon 915.
What Burke means is that Canon lawyers had mentally pigeonholed Canon 915 under “marriage law,” even though it is NOT part of marriage law. It is also NOT a penal canon—which brings to mind another way Wuerl has constantly misled the public. Wuerl has repeatedly talked about denial of Communion as a “sanction,” or a “penalty,” as have other bishops. It is not a penalty. It is a regulation which follows directly from the divine law regarding sacrilege and scandal—and it is in the section of canon law dealing with the administration of sacraments.
This statement is a precise expression of the ancient canons on ecclesiology. The Archbishop is absolutely correct in what he has written.
The ill-informed opinion of a schismatic is irrelevant.
“What would improve this statement would be if he identified Catholic politicians who reside within his archdiocese whose political positions are at odds with the Church...”
Here's one: the Lt. Gov. of Maryland, Anthony Brown, who lives in Prince George's County. I'm reasonably sure that Mr. Brown endorses “a woman's right to choose [the intentional and direct killing of her unborn baby].”
sitetest
And he would be a fine example.
What parish is Brown a member of?
St. Joseph's in Largo (Landover, wherever - right on Route 202 by the Beltway).
I know a lot of folks over there. Lots of nice people. They have a great Knights of Columbus Council. But this guy Brown should be disciplined.
sitetest
The bishops who have so far expressed disapproval of Notre Dame's invitation to Obama (in alphabetical order) are:
The bishops who have so far expressed disapproval of Notre Dame's invitation to Obama (in alphabetical order) are:
1. Bishop John D'Arcy - Fort Wayne-South Bend, IN
2. Bishop Samuel Aquila - Fargo, ND
3. Bishop Gregory Aymond - Austin, TX
4. Bishop Gerald Barbarito - Palm Beach, FL
5. Bishop Leonard Blair - Toledo, OH
6. Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua (Archbishop Emeritus) - Philadelphia, PA
7. Bishop Lawrence Brandt - Greensburg, PA
8. Archbishop Daniel Buechlein - Indianapolis, IN
9. Bishop Robert Baker - Birmingham, AL
10. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz - Lincoln, NE
11. Archbishop Eusebius Beltran - Oklahoma City, OK
12. Auxiliary Bishop Oscar Cantú - San Antonio, TX
13. Archbishop Charles Chaput - Denver, CO
14. Bishop Paul Coakley - Salina, KS
15. Bishop Edward Cullen - Allentown, PA
16. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo - Houston, TX
17. Archbishop Timothy Dolan - New York, NY
18. Bishop Thomas Doran - Rockford, IL
19. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty - Scranton, PA
20. Bishop Robert Finn - Kansas City-St. Joseph, MO
21. Bishop Joseph Galante - Camden, NJ
22. Bishop Victor Galeone - St. Augustine, FL
23. Cardinal Francis George - Chicago, IL; President, USCCB
24. Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger - Evansville, IN
25. Archbishop José Gomez - San Antonio, TX
26. Bishop Bernard Harrington - Winona, MN
27. Bishop Robert Hermann - St. Louis, MO
28. Bishop William Higi - Lafayette, IN
29. Archbishop Alfred Hughes - New Orleans, LA
30. Bishop Michael O. Jackels - Wichita, KS
31. Bishop James V. Johnston - Springfield-Cape Girardeau, MO
32. Bishop Peter Jugis - Charlotte, NC
33. Bishop Joseph Latino - Jackson, MS
34. Bishop John LeVoir - New Ulm, MN
35. Bishop Jerome Listecki - La Crosse, WI
36. Bishop William E. Lori - Bridgeport, CT
37. Bishop Paul Loverde - Arlington, VA
38. Bishop George Lucas - Springfield, IL
39. Bishop Robert Lynch - St. Petersburg, FL
40. Bishop Joseph Martino - Scranton, PA
41. Bishop John McCormack - Manchester, NH
42. Bishop Robert Morlino - Madison, WI
43. Bishop William Murphy - Rockville Centre, NY
44. Bishop George Murry - Youngstown, OH
45. Archbishop John J. Myers - Newark, NJ
46. Archbishop Joseph Naumann - Kansas City, KS
47. Bishop R. Walker Nickless - Sioux City, IA
48. Archbishop John C. Nienstedt - St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN
49. Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - Baltimore, MD
50. Bishop Thomas Olmsted - Phoenix, AZ
51. Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk - Cincinnati, OH
52. Bishop Reymundo Pena - Brownsville, TX
53. Bishop Glen Provost - Lake Charles, LA
54. Bishop David Ricken - Green Bay, WI
55. Cardinal Justin Rigali - Philadelphia, PA; Chairman, USCCB Pro-Life Committee
56. Bishop Kevin Rhoades - Harrisburg, PA
57. Bishop Alexander Sample - Marquette, MI
58. Bishop Edward J. Slattery - Tulsa, OK
59. Bishop Richard Stika - Knoxville, TN
60. Bishop Anthony Taylor - Little Rock, AR
61. Bishop George Thomas - Helena, MT
62. Bishop Robert Vasa - Baker, OR
63. Bishop Michael Warfel - Great Falls-Billings, MT
64. Bishop Thomas Wenski - Orlando, FL
65. Archbishop Donald Wuerl - Washington, D.C.
66. Bishop David Zubick - Pittsburgh, PA
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042807.html
For a list of contact information regarding the Notre Dame scandal, go to: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032706.html
“The ill-informed opinion of a schismatic is irrelevant.”
Ah, but AAC, it is a well informed opinion. My opinions about proper canonical ecclesiology are founded in the canons. Orthodox Christians take them quite seriously. You, alas, are an ill catechised American Catholic whose theology, like that of so many of your fellows on both the right and the left, are born of your politics. That’s not a good place to take theology from, AAC. It usually leads to heresy...or being laughed at.
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.