Archbishop Wuerl says politicians’ support for abortion is wrong

St. Joseph's in Largo…Lots of nice people.

Visited there a couple of times myself and fully agree with your assessment.

But this guy Brown should be disciplined.

You know if the pastor has talked to him? Has anybody, charitably, talked to the pastor or shown the pastor Abp Burke's writing on The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin for his prayerful consideration?

Has anybody complained on how the laity are scandalized by seeing this individual receive the Blessed Sacrament on a weekly basis while fiercely advocating for the genocide of infants while still in the womb? (Or does he not actually show up for Mass, except if the cameras are around)

Just curious. Because most politicians don't generally brag about their support for infant dismemberment. Most of them coach their support in euphemisms, such as "support for comprehensive women's health" or some such.

I'm asking not to start an argument, but if I'm assured that what can be done locally has been done locally (per the guidance of the documents cited above), then I am bullheaded enough to ask His Excellency when I see him. It's not that I see His Excellency on a regular basis, but I do see him in person two or three times a year. I've asked uncomfortable questions before and won't hesitate to do so again. But I would hate to do so and then get egg on my face.

So long as there are NO consequences for their actions, why should the baby-killers refrain from the The Sacraments? Passing the buck won’t cut it. If he can’t be a Good Shepherd, at least Wuerl should be a man.

Dear markomalley,

“You know if the pastor has talked to him?”

I really don't know. I don't know the pastor, never met him. I just go over there to Knights functions from time to time.

I've never met Mr. Brown, and I don't know whether or not he goes to Mass. But I know that many folks in the parish are proud that one of their own parishioner's is lieutenant governor.

“Because most politicians don't generally brag about their support for infant dismemberment.”

Well, this fellow is proud enough about it to have given a talk to the baby butchers in 2007.

“I'm asking not to start an argument, but if I'm assured that what can be done locally has been done locally (per the guidance of the documents cited above), then I am bullheaded enough to ask His Excellency when I see him.”

I really couldn't say whether the pastor has spoken with him or not. I guess in my view, it doesn't exactly matter. If the pastor hasn't spoken with the apostate, then the archbishop should be instructing the pastor to do so, and to state that if the apostate doesn't publicly repent of his views, the apostate should be banned from the sacraments. If the pastor HAS spoken with the apostate, then the archbishop should be instructing the pastor to continue to do so, and to state that if the apostate doesn't publicly repent of his views, the apostate should be banned from the sacraments.

sitetest

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.

Historically, the Archdiocese of Washington is led by a Cardinal. Archbishop Wuerl has been passed over several times.

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Sadly the office of bishop, like the members of every hierarchy, is filled with careerists. For every Augustine or Ambrose, there are a thousand weaklings. Just like us in the pews.

Dear NYer,

“Historically, the Archdiocese of Washington is led by a Cardinal. Archbishop Wuerl has been passed over several times.”

It's unlikely that this has anything to do with Archbishop Wuerl’s views on disciplining pro-abort Catholic politicians.

Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, our first ordinary, wasn't created cardinal for 20 years. Our next ordinary, William Cardinal Baum, only had to wait for his red hat for 3 years. Our next ordinary, James Cardinal Hickey, waited 8 years to be created cardinal. Theordore Cardinal McCarrick was created cardinal almost immediately after becoming the Archbishop of Washington.

Why the discrepancies? It is likely, at least in part, because the Vatican tries to avoid having two voting cardinals from the same see. The current Archbishop-Emeritus of Washington, Cardinal McCarrick, is still under the age of 80, and thus is still a cardinal elector in the event of the need to elect a new pontiff. Thus, if Archbishop Wuerl were made a cardinal before Cardinal McCarrick turns 80, Washington, DC would have two voting cardinals in a conclave. My understanding is that the Vatican tries to avoid this outcome.

And sure enough, Archbishop Baum was elevated shortly before Cardinal O’Boyle’s 80th birthday. Cardinal Hickey didn't have to wait until Cardinal Baum turned 80 because Cardinal Baum wasn't the Archbishop-Emeritus of Washington, but rather was a high Vatican curial official. Cardinal Hickey had already turned 80 when Cardinal McCarrick was created cardinal.

Look for Archbishop Wuerl to be created cardinal sometime after mid-2010.

sitetest

It is likely, at least in part, because the Vatican tries to avoid having two voting cardinals from the same see. The current Archbishop-Emeritus of Washington, Cardinal McCarrick, is still under the age of 80, and thus is still a cardinal elector in the event of the need to elect a new pontiff.

Thank you for the clarification. I was not aware of this and it makes perfectly good sense.

I understand that any canonical penalty should be imposed by a home bishop, but what is the Orthodox solution for people who travel and wish to receive while away from the home diocese, while in public sin?

I see two fundamental issues going on here:

1) The issue of the salvation of the soul of Lt. Gov. Brown

2) The prevention of scandal (which could lead others to believe that his behavior is tacitly OK to imitate)

Righteous indignation does not play into either of these situations.

As you know, excommunication (which is what you advocate) is a medicinal penalty (See Canon 1312). It's goal is not the satisfaction of the masses, rather its goal is the reconciliation of the member of the faithful.

As such, while any counseling is going on (or could be going on), it's not going to be a matter for public discussion or public pronouncement. It would be handled in a quiet fashion. Take as an example Ms. Pelosi's meeting with Abp. Niederauer on Feb 8th of this year. See this OSV blog entry that broke the story and this FR thread that discussed it. No comments on the meeting on either side, other than that "it was productive." (Note: I have no idea what happened at this meeting and, in fact, I have no idea if Abp Niederauer is going to take any additional action. The only reason I brought it up was to illustrate how quietly these things can be handled).

In fact, in the case of Bishop Finn and Sebelius, I would wager that he either extensively tried to educate her or made repeated attempts that were rebuffed, prior to making his pronouncement.

The point is that we don't know if action has happened or is happening. The only way to do so is by asking the pastor (the point man in the situation) or the Ordinary.

I wouldn't expect to hear pronouncements from the Ambo condemning the man by name: counseling is, by nature, private and excommunication is intended to be medicinal in nature (provided that the excommunication is respected), so humiliation is not part of the deal. And, keep in mind, that if this man, Brown, is not a regular Mass-goer, you might NEVER hear about it.

The real thing that would be important is if the pastor and other homilists in the parish speak about pro-life issues on a regular basis and about the importance of being faithful Catholics in civil life, particularly if holding a public job. And I can't answer if that type of homily is delivered, regularly, or even "ever" at that parish.

You said,

I really couldn't say whether the pastor has spoken with him or not. I guess in my view, it doesn't exactly matter. If the pastor hasn't spoken with the apostate, then the archbishop should be instructing the pastor to do so, and to state that if the apostate doesn't publicly repent of his views, the apostate should be banned from the sacraments. If the pastor HAS spoken with the apostate, then the archbishop should be instructing the pastor to continue to do so, and to state that if the apostate doesn't publicly repent of his views, the apostate should be banned from the sacraments.

Neither of us know if Brown attends Mass, if he presents himself for communion, or if the conversations have happened. Should we know that type of private information? How is that going to benefit Brown's soul?

When I see pictures like those we saw last year, Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy receiving communion, we are outraged. But I've been asking myself in the past few months if "outrage" is the right reaction or if "grave concern" for the state of their souls should be the right reaction. As Archbishop Burke said in the document cited earlier in the thread, The denial of Holy Communion can be ... in order to respect the holiness of the Sacrament, to safeguard the salvation of the soul of the party presenting himself to receive Holy Communion, and to avoid scandal. Think about it: the person ministering Holy Communion may or may not know the state of their souls and if they have received any kind of interdict. However, the person receiving Holy Communion has sacrilege added to his account, on top of the sin that has burned his soul. And the person receiving KNOWS this.

"I understand that any canonical penalty should be imposed by a home bishop, but what is the Orthodox solution for people who travel and wish to receive while away from the home diocese, while in public sin?"

If the local bishop knows the position of the home bishop, or can find out, the wishes of the home bishop will be honored. Where it could get interesting is when the local priest knows of some public sin, say living with someone in a physical relationship without being married, which for whatever reason the home priest knows nothing about. The local priest will, or should, refuse communion. This actually happened in my parish with a visiting "same sex couple".

So with respect to Pelosi receiving in DC, given the availability of modern communications, we can assume that her local bishop in San Francisco, Most Rev. George Hugh Niederauer, approves of her receiving?

Niederauer's letter concludes

it is my responsibility as Archbishop to discern and decide, prayerfully, how best to approach this question as it may arise in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

Then he invites her to a "conversation". I don't know if that took place and what it produced. It is noteworthy, though, that Niederauer thinks that the issue "may arise" in San Francisco. So we have a canonical gridlock: Pelosi receiving in DC depends on the view of Niederauer who is not sure if it has arisen yet as a local issue. What is your Orthodox comment, were a similar scenario playing out in the Orthodox Church?

Pelosi and Niederauer had their meeting on 8 Feb.

Dear markomalley,

Who said anything about righteous indignation?

In all cases, when so-called Catholic politicians give aid and comfort to legal abortion, they give scandal. There apostasy is a public crime as well as a private one.

As a three-time Grand Knight, I've seen what these minions of Satan have done to the Church, to folks in the pews. When trying to motivate folks for pro-life activities, I've heard the echo, “The bishops aren't serious. If they were, they would have done something about Ted Kennedy, Barbara Mikulski, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki, etc., etc., etc.”

This is part of the reason why many Catholics are either lukewarm on the issue of baby killing, or actually in favor of baby killing, themselves. The bishops have been derelict in their requirement to publicly discipline those who commit this grave scandal.

This, as you point out, is separate from the issue of the soul of the apostate.

What that suggests is that bishops and pastors should take a two-track approach, in parallel. The private counseling track is one that should be conducted in private, of course, and that could take a long time.

But the public rebuke should happen after one or two public warnings, so that it isn't left in doubt to the laity about the question of whether one can be pro-baby murder and be a faithful Catholic.

“As you know, excommunication (which is what you advocate)...”

I suggested no such thing. I suggested being banned from the sacraments until one publicly repents. If one wishes to apply a formal title to such an act, I think that interdict better serves.

“The point is that we don't know if action has happened or is happening. The only way to do so is by asking the pastor (the point man in the situation) or the Ordinary.”

Certainly, but all that should do is tell whether the apostate is on the very verge of being banned, or is perhaps an additional week or two from that point.

“Neither of us know if Brown attends Mass, if he presents himself for communion, or if the conversations have happened. Should we know that type of private information? How is that going to benefit Brown's soul?”

Not important to the public aspect of this. What's important is to publicly rebuke and ban the apostate, so that people understand that this is not permissible.

“When I see pictures like those we saw last year, Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy receiving communion, we are outraged. But I've been asking myself in the past few months if ‘outrage’ is the right reaction or if ‘grave concern’ for the state of their souls should be the right reaction.”

Although we should all be concerned, in a general way, about the state of every soul, and this is why I've prayed for the conversion of the likes of Chappaquiddick Ted, the anti-Christ Obama, etc., that's really not our department. The care of these individual souls is in the hands of their sacred pastors (although the anti-Christ Obama doesn't appear to have any sacred pastor, only satanic pastors).

But I've seen up close and personal the effects of not publicly rebuking and disciplining the apostates. And we've seen the larger effect on the Church as a whole. What about the salvation of the souls of my friends who tell me that the bishops don't really mean it when they pronounce against abortion, citing the examples of all the Catholic apostate politicians? I have much more of an obligation to care for their souls, as they are my friends and neighbors, as I am involved in their lives and they in mine, as my children see them as allegedly faithful Catholic adults in my parish.

Are not the Catholic apostate politicians helping to lead these people to Hell? And by failing to publicly rebuke and discipline the apostates by name, are not the bishops, whether they mean to or not, leading folks to the inference that being pro-abort is perfectly acceptable? Then, by failing to do their duty, are not the bishops, too, leading these laypeople to Hell?

I hope and pray that all the apostates repent and avoid damnation (although I'm not holding my breath). But frankly, I care more for all the folks in the pew that they're dragging down into Hell, in part because of the dereliction of duty on the part of the bishops and priests, who should be shouting their infamy from the rooftops.

sitetest

I agree with what you say, except for specifically naming names from the ambo.

They should use the bully pulpit, though, in the proper context and with the proper media. From the newspaper, yes. From the TV, yes. They should make the public comment -- but, not in the lines of "Pelosi is excommunicated," rather "Pelosi is placing her eternal soul in jeopardy." (replace Pelosi with your favorite Catholic politician). Frankly, I haven't seen enough of the latter. In fact, the first time I really saw any public reaction by a bishop expressing concern for her soul was following her abortive "Meet the Press" interview where she assumed the title, Chief Theologian of the House.

This, in combination with some serious teaching from the pulpit, would, in my opinion, be the better approach.

One other point. You said, I suggested no such thing. I suggested being banned from the sacraments until one publicly repents. If one wishes to apply a formal title to such an act, I think that interdict better serves.

From Father Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary:

EXCOMMUNICATION

An ecclesiastical censure by which one is more or less excluded from communion with the faithful. It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with formal solemnities on persons notoriously obstinate to reconciliation. Some excommunicated persons are vitandi (to be avoided), others tolerati (tolerate). No one is vitandus unless that person has been publicly excommunicated by name by the Holy See, and it is expressly stated that the person is "to be avoided," Anyone who lays violent hands on the Pope is automatically vitandus.
In general, the effects of excommunication affect the person's right to receive the sacraments, or Christian burial, until the individual repents and is reconciled with the Church. In order for an excommunication to take effect, the person must have been objectively guilty of the crime charged. (Etym. Latin ex-, from + communicare, to communicate: excommunicatio, exclusion from a community.)

INTERDICT

A censure forbidding the faithful, while still remaining in communion with the Church, the use of certain sacred privileges, such as Christian burial, some of the sacraments, and attendance at liturgical services. It does not exclude from Church membership, nor does it necessarily imply a personal fault of any individual affected by the interdict. When imposed for a fixed period, it is a vindictive penalty because of some grave act done against the common good of the Church by one or more parishes. Usual religious services are curtailed, but sacraments may be given to the dying, marriages celebrated, and Holy Communion administered if the interdict is general or local (not personal). A general interdict may be inflicted only by the Holy See. Parishes or persons may be interdicted only by the local ordinary.

The above is why I chose excommunicate. Regardless, tomato - tomahto.

Dear markomalley,

“I agree with what you say, except for specifically naming names from the ambo.”

I'm not sure that I suggested a particular locale (other than the metaphorical "rooftops") for the recitation of the crimes of the apostates. If the pastor would rather give an interview to the local newspaper, put it in the church bulletin, issue a press release, that's fine by me.

If the bishop wants to hold a televised press conference, I'm cool with that.

“They should make the public comment — but, not in the lines of ‘Pelosi is excommunicated,’ rather ‘Pelosi is placing her eternal soul in jeopardy.’”

I disagree with both. The statement should read, “Ms. Pelosi’s views and actions concerning abortion and the fundamental right to life place her outside of the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. For this reason, Ms. Pelosi is no longer a practicing Catholic, and will no longer be permitted to receive the Blessed Sacrament at Mass. Neither may she participate, especially as a godparent, sponsor, or witness, in Catholic baptisms, confirmations, or weddings.

“When Ms. Pelosi publicly repudiates her spiritually-fatal views, and is absolved by a priest in the sacrament of Reconciliation, she will be permitted to participate again in the sacramental life of the Church.”

As to what you've written on interdiction, I'm not sure it's any longer valid. It appears that the interdiction about which you write is one that can be applied to places. That sort of interdiction seems to have disappeared from the current Code of Canon Law. Without going back and re-reading that part of Canon Law that deals with interdiction, it is a less serious penalty than excommunication because, as you write, it leaves the person interdicted, “while still remaining in communion with the Church,...”

But heck, I don't think bishops or priests need to use either word. It's you that insisted on using the word “excommunication.” I merely suggested “interdiction” in its place.

A statement banning the person from participation in sacramental life would be sufficient.

sitetest

Historically, the Archdiocese of Washington is led by a Cardinal. Archbishop Wuerl has been passed over several times.

Rightfully so. Wuerl did not to anything significant to earn the honor. All he is good at is pass the buck.

“So with respect to Pelosi receiving in DC, given the availability of modern communications, we can assume that her local bishop in San Francisco, Most Rev. George Hugh Niederauer, approves of her receiving?”

Alex, I have no idea what her local ordinary is doing.

“What is your Orthodox comment, were a similar scenario playing out in the Orthodox Church?”

I sincerely doubt such a scenario would play itself out in the Orthodox Church, but if it did, and the “home” hierarch decided not to decide, then the local hierarch, I suspect, would do what he felt was appropriate for his diocese. Like I said, however, you are positing something that likely simply won’t happen.