Posted on 03/19/2012 9:43:02 AM PDT by marshmallow
Since he won't control the sacraments, the Church's enemies will.
The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bad bishops. That's a slight paraphrase of a line from St. John Chrysostom.
The saints of old warned bishops to choose holiness and orthodoxy over the blandishments of the "world." Many bishops today in America choose the good opinion of worldly elites over orthodoxy. These cufflinked cardinals worry not about punishment in the next world but slights in this one. They desperately crave the approval of America's movers and shakers and live in dread fear of losing it.
What will the Pretty People think if I withhold Communion from powerful pro-abortion Catholic pols? Will the Washington Post editorialize against me? Will I lose my place of honor at posh parties? Will my dissenting priests think ill of me? Will I be scorned at the next USCCB meeting?
These are some of the thoughts that race through the minds of modern prelates. Out of these anxieties comes fiascoes like Cardinal Donald Wuerl's recent one. Wuerl and his surrogates have rebuked a visiting priest from the archdiocese of Moscow for denying Communion to a self-described practicing lesbian at a funeral mass. That's not our "policy," gasped Wuerl's horrified surrogates.
But it is the policy of the Roman Catholic Church. If a person is not in communion with the teachings of the Church, said person should not receive Communion. Period. Canon law makes this explicitly clear. If you don't believe me, ask the head of the Vatican Supreme Court, Cardinal Raymond Burke. Though most of his colleagues seem to ignore his stance, he has said for years that canon law places a grave burden on priests to protect the sacraments from defiant sinners. According to Burke, canon law is not a whimsical option for..........
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Wink, wink...........
The Catholic church allows this bishop to give comfort to a lesbian Buddist who wanted to defile a consecrated host?
And then, Pelosi and the democrats continue pushing the slaughter of over 3,300 unborn and newly born humans daily, and the church does nothing?
Isn’t it about time that Rome step in, since the American church won’t do it, and start publicly excommunicating thousands of slobs that are destroying the church from within?
Well, at this point, Wuerl can't possibly pretend that he hasn't heard about this case, although the point man was one of his auxiliary bishops--another dissident jerk specially chosen by him, I believe.
This is like spitting in the face of our Lord and Savior. Bishops are not supposed to behave like the Roman soldiers at the Crucifixion.
His other nickname is “Donna.”
This needs more press and I’m glad it is getting it.
“Our primary job is to teach and try to convince people. The tradition in our country has not been in the direction of refusing Communion, and I think it’s served us well.”
—Cardinal Wuerl, of Washington
Oh yes, it’s just working out smashingly, Cardinal. Look at all the public Catholics that have been convinced.
Another opportunity seized to let everyone know the Eucharists isn’t really a big deal when you get right down to it. One can’t teach without discipline, any sane first grade teacher could tell the Cardinal that.
Freegards
The Priest at the altar: “Lord Jesus Christ...look not on our sins but on the faith of your Church, and graciously grant her peace and unity in accordance with your will.” We are obligated to pray for our Priests.
“We thank you, God our Father, for those who have responded to your call to priestly ministry. Accept this prayer we offer on their behalf: Fill your priests with the sure knowledge of your love. Open their hearts to the power and consolation of the Holy Spirit” = part of a prayer by the Knights of Columbus.
The Archbishop is a Pittsburgh native. We have several mutual acquaintances. All have described him to me as being “a good priest......but the consummate politician.”
I see your point ... to an extant. My understanding is that the Catholic Church does not make it a sin to be homosexual; however, committing homosexual acts are a sin. The stance of the Church should be, as I believe it has always been, to love the sinner while detesting the sin.
But when you are faced with a case like Nancy Pelosi who is publicly campaigning for abortion rights, futhering policies that cause the death of millions of children - I think the Church can and must stand up and say "Ms. Pelosi, by your public actions you have shown yourself to be out of communion with the Church, by your own choice, and we will not allow you to participate in the sacriments (in the absence of true repentence)." I can somewhat tolerate a Congressman who votes for an abortion bill in order to politically represent his constituents. I wouldn't vote for him, but I respect he has conflicting duties. But when you have someone like "San Fran Nan" who publically campaigns against the beliefs of the Church, she should be excommunicated.
However, when someone makes a point of public disobedience to the Church, that's different. The priest has an obligation under Canon Law not to distribute Communion to someone who has publicly taken themselves out of communion with the Church.
In this case, the priest knew full well that the woman presenting herself was in a state of mortal sin. He was obliged to do what he did: refuse Communion.
The Archbishop is a wimp. Unless he shapes up, his skull will be one of those paving the floor of Hell.
I can only pray that my bones won't be there as well.
In my own humble opinion, I would prefer the Church come out and clearly articulate that politicians who claim to be Catholic, and deny the Faith through their actions are no longer in a state of Grace and should not receive the sacraments (their choice). This undoubtedly would appear very political, but should be couched in the Teachings of the Church. Then let those such as MS Pelosi explain to the rest of us why her sins are in some way justified.
She does not represent the Church, therefore the Church needs to find a way to distance itself from her (until or IF she finds her way back).
Wuerl's answer is there and we know it!
There is always a middle ground between the Jansenist view and the jesuitical, which is the one now seemingly being followed by the Cardinal.
The irony is that the Church excommunicated Luther but not Kueng, even though Kueng’s teachings are a much more radical departure. A further point: Many in other Christians bodies are more faithful to the Church’s teachings.
But it is incredible to me that the Church can bury a man like Kennedy, whose ralled against the teachings of the Church, with ceremony appropriate to a saint. His sister, whose life was pious, whatever her private views, was buried quietly, as he should have been.
If the Church does all of this ironically, I must confess, I do not see it.
“a good priest......but the consummate politician.”
Politicians cut deals and compromise belief and principles.
That doesn’t sound like a good priest to me. We need spiritual men who will lead the flock. I fear for the Church in America.
A prudential opinion contradicted by both Canon Law and Scripture.
Yes, I think that would be right, but I don't think it should be limited to politicians. Anyone who publicly associates themselves with organizations that are wholly incompatible with the faith should not be considered in a state of grace. It will apparently have to come from Rome. There was a time such a duty could be entrusted to the bishops of the various dioceses, but we seem to have a crop who are apparently missing certain body parts normally associated with a male.
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.