Archbishop Wuerl says politicians’ support for abortion is wrong

CNA ^ | 5/5/2009

[annalex]

if [...] the “home” hierarch decided not to decide, then the local hierarch, I suspect, would do what he felt was appropriate for his diocese

So it would not be inappropriate for the DC bishop, in whose jurisdiction the public sinner attempts to receive and spends most of her time, to refuse her communion AFTER a certain point of frustration is reached with the bishop of San Francisco.

[markomalley]

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.”

Let me make one change and add one thing. Rather than saying, Ms. Pelosi is no longer a practicing Catholic, I would say Ms. Pelosi has publicly advocated positions that are not reconcilable with her repeated claims to be a practicing Catholic and is materially responsible, through the implementation of legislation she has sponsored, for the death of countless thousands of infants in the womb. I would then add, "I have attempted to privately communicate these grave concerns to her both in person and in writing, and, in addition, have communicated privately that, for the good of her own soul, she should not attempt to receive Holy Communion until she has publicly repudiated her public actions. Despite having been privately counseled to not approach communion, she continues to do so. Therefore, I am left with no choice but to make this public statement, in order to prevent scandal among the faithful."

Provided such counseling happened, or was attempted, I would have no problem with such a statement, as amended, being made.

Having said that, the individual to do so is Abp. Niederauer, her Ordinary. In a fantasy world, I would hope that Abp. Wuerl, the local bishop, would be in communication with him and would encourage him to do so. But both imaginations are in a fantasy world.

We're getting closer to that point. But it's a long way off still.

[Kolokotronis]

“So it would not be inappropriate for the DC bishop, in whose jurisdiction the public sinner attempts to receive and spends most of her time, to refuse her communion AFTER a certain point of frustration is reached with the bishop of San Francisco.”

I suspect that the matter would have to be dealt with within the Synod, Alex.

[sitetest]

Dear markomalley,

In my view, the fact of individual, private counsel is really not something that is appropriate for public disclosure. We aren't out to try to judge her soul, only her public words and deeds. The soul stuff is between her and the priest and/or bishop.

What is appropriately noted publicly are public rebukes and warnings, and finally, public discipline.

“Ms. Pelosi has publicly advocated positions that are not reconcilable with her repeated claims to be a practicing Catholic...”

Far too soft. And also inaccurate, should a bishop actually have the courage to do the right thing. Once she were banned from the sacraments, she would be, indeed, no longer a practicing Catholic, almost tautologically.

In invoking Canon 915, it doesn't matter whether a particular Catholic is part of the flock of a particular bishop. What matters is the protection of the Blessed Sacrament from sacrilege. Each bishop is obligated to ensure that these baby murderers not approach the sacrament.

sitetest

[markomalley]

OK. I understand your position.

[sitetest]

Dear markomalley,

My thoughts on this have evolved over time. You played a not insignificant role in their development. Some months ago, or even longer, you expressed concern and disappointment by the fact that the Knights of Columbus will not remove openly pro-baby killing politicians from our ranks.

The more I thought about it, the more convinced I became that the Order's path is the right one: if the bishops and priests permit a man to call himself a practical Catholic, if they permit him to avail himself of the sacraments, to participate in Catholic rites (baptisms, confirmations, weddings, etc.), how can we as laymen judge that he is not a practical Catholic?

Yet, I understand and share the frustration that you expressed. This is just one more rotten fruit that has come about as the result of the dereliction on the part of the clergy. You are a Knight, and you know that the two questions we ask of a man when we ask him to become a Knight are 1) are you at least 18 years old and 2) are you a practical Catholic in communion with Rome as understood by the Church?

If a man is attending Mass, receiving the Blessed Sacrament, baptizing children and grandchildren, so on and so forth, just how can we, as laymen, judge juridically that the man is not a practical Catholic? We are layfolks. We do not have the authority to do what it is the clergy's obligation to do. If the priests were to go on strike on Sunday and refuse to say Mass, we could not say, "Oh well, the priests are refusing to do their duty. Let's do it for them and appoint someone from the laity to say the Mass."

Remember the reproach that I've received in my own parish: The bishops aren't serious about this issue, because if they were, they'd have done something with Chappaquiddick Ted, etc., etc., etc.

I see first-hand how this dereliction of duty on the part of the clergy has damaged the laity, and has damaged our lay organizations. The continued wussified actions of the clergy, especially the bishops, continue to damage the Church.

Hell. Skulls. Pavement.

sitetest

[markomalley]

Hell. Skulls. Pavement.

I agree with you.

As I've written earlier, though, I believe that there has been a fundamental sea-change in our bishops, in the wake of Ms. Pelosi's abortive Meet The Press interview last August. Prior to that time, they were almost universally silent on the issues. Yes, there were the one or two "freaks" who actually took their responsibility seriously, but otherwise, the synod of bishops in this country were nothing but an upper-class Democratic Club.

I have seen more come out of the bishops, including our bishop, in the past 9 months than I have seen in the 9 years prior to that time.

Is it enough? No. Is it all the bishops? No. Nor do I pretend that this is the case.

But I see a change. And the point I'm trying to get at is to encourage that type of positive behavior, while still remaining loyal Catholics.

The discussion we had was a couple of years ago, well before the latest turn of events.

And the point I'm coming to realize is that the bishops are human: like the rest of us, they can be influenced by the voices they have in their ears.

Hell. Skulls. Pavement.

Honestly, I cannot bring myself to believe that most bishops are intentionally evil. Influenced, yes. Improperly educated in Catholic Schools and in Catholic Colleges and in Catholic Seminaries, yes. Constantly influenced by libtards whispering in their ears, yes. But evil. Maybe a couple...but I have to believe that most are well-meaning, but just wrong.

We are layfolks. We do not have the authority to do what it is the clergy's obligation to do.

Yes, we are layfolks. And no, we cannot replace the clergy, nor should we think that we should or could. But we do have the obligation to pray for them. We do have the opportunity to attempt to encourage them to do the courageous thing. We need more of this:

Both in a context like at the March for Life and in a more personal context. I wonder what the reaction would be if a vigil was kept outside a diocese's chancery holding signs like this day and night for a couple of weeks. Or maybe outside of many chanceries. Would the vigil-keepers be seen as disloyal Catholics? Suppose such a vigil generated a couple of reports on the local TV news?

[annalex]

Returning to the gay couple attempting to receive communion at an Orthodox church not in their home parish, who are known to receive in their home parish, do you think the local priest will be giving them communion while waiting to a synodal resolution?

[TaxachusettsMan]

Hey Salvation,

Just for the fun of it, since you are FOREVER and REPEATEDLY publishing THE LIST of those bishops who have had the courage to speak up in the cause of right,

(though not always the courage to turn their WORDS into ACTIONS: note Wuerl’s cowardice in refusing to refuse Pelosi Communion . . . “Gee, I’m not her bishop.” Yeah, right, Don, she just lives in your Archdiocese 99% of her time),

could you tell me if you are really proud of the fact that

ONLY 65

. . . . ONLY 65

of the 265 bishops have had that courage?

“Were not TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE given Mitres, Crosses, Rings and Croziers . . . where then are the other TWO-HUNDRED?”

Actually, as we know, it doesn’t take a mitre to have the courage to speak up; only something else, that these 200 apparently don’t have.

[sitetest]

Dear markomalley,

It sounds like what you're saying is that the bishops are no longer collectively scoring, say, a 17% on their work, but have raised their grades to a solid 28%. But even with 60% as a passing grade (my son's Catholic high school generally considers 70% to be passing), their still down deep in F-minus-land.

If that's what you're saying, I agree. They're still generally deeply disappointing failures, but they have raised their grades.

“And the point I'm trying to get at is to encourage that type of positive behavior, while still remaining loyal Catholics.”

I think that most of these folks are “encouraged” by a swift kick in the rear end. They're like the proverbial mule. When hit with a 2X4 across the head, they ask, “Why did you do that?” to which the only answer must be, “It was the only way to get your attention.”

I think that the election of the notorious human-hating anti-Christ Obama may be the 2X4 that makes them realize that although the Republican Party is certainly not God's party, the Democrat Party is certainly the party of Satan.

“And the point I'm coming to realize is that the bishops are human: like the rest of us, they can be influenced by the voices they have in their ears.”

Most of them, especially Donald Wuerl, are still part-time Catholics and full-time Democrats.

“I wonder what the reaction would be if a vigil was kept outside a diocese's chancery holding signs like this day and night for a couple of weeks. Or maybe outside of many chanceries. Would the vigil-keepers be seen as disloyal Catholics?”

In the stalinist Archdiocese of Washington, we would certainly be seen as disloyal Catholics.

sitetest

[TaxachusettsMan]

Wuerl and Niederauer are cowards, pure and simple.

And probably both card-carrying Dems.

Here in Boston, of course, Cardinal O’Malley spends his free time “blogging” - of all ridiculous things - about all inconsequential things.

The architecture of this parish church, a meeting with that Spanish Capuchin.

Meanwhile, within walking distance of his rectory, CATHOLICS FOR OBAMA (aka CATHOLIC DEMOCRATS) have their mailing address and run their website.

Some of them teach at BC.

But never is heard
A Magisterial word.

What waste of red watered silk (though he’s usually in the brown bag) and chrism!

[sitetest]

Dear TaxachusettsMan,

In fairness, nearly all of the 66 bishops who have so far spoken out have been ordinaries of their dioceses. It is probably the proper place of the ordinary to speak on this issue.

However, there are something like 197 dioceses and eparchies in the United States, so we're still seeing only about a third of these dioceses represented.

One hopes that the current rate of new bishops speaking out will continue, or perhaps even accelerate. If that happens, we might see half or more of the dioceses represented.

And as markomalley points out, it's still woefully insufficient, still a completely failing grade, but nonetheless, * sigh * it would represent progress.

sitetest

[annalex]

I wonder what the wisdom is of putting the milquetoastest of bishops in liberal dioceses. Granted, they can better relate to their liberal flock, but it doesn’t mean they are better suited to lead that flock to salvation. Wuerl, in addition, being in DC, is in the unfortunate position to amplify any scandal to the entire country.

The signs are good, though. While 65 is still a minority, a couple of years ago a similar score would be in single digits. And this is, as the Orthodox don’t cease to remind us, a local sovereignty issue: it could be that some of the remaining 200 consider a public condemnation inappropriate for that reason. The Church as a whole, with this blessed pontificate, is moving steadily to the right.

[TaxachusettsMan]

"and this, as the Orthodox don't cease to remind us, is a local sovereignty issue"

With all due respect, there are a number of reasons we're NOT Orthodox (capital O), and this is one of them.

When it comes to abortion, among other issues, there is no question of variation from diocese to diocese, and there ought not be variation from diocese to diocese regarding the consequences for not adhering to the clear and universal teaching of the Universal Church.

Primus inter pares, is what our Orthodox friends would say regarding the Pope.

We, however, say: Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.

Though you are 100% correct about the grace of God which this truly blessed Pontificate is to us!

[annalex]

It is another case where Catholicism strikes the proper balance. However, bishops’ relative sovereignty is also a Catholic principle. Note that the question is not that some bishops are pro-abortion — perish the thought. Uniform doctrine is taught; the disagreements are pastoral.

We can think of a number of examples where relative sovereignty of Catholic bishops brought forth good fruit, recently in revitalizing the Traditional Mass.