Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty
American Spectator ^ | 3/19/12 | George Neumayr

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 ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS:
I've heard Church insiders call the cardinal "Wuerl the girl," a reference to his precious personality.

Wink, wink...........

1 posted on 03/19/2012 9:43:06 AM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

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?


2 posted on 03/19/2012 9:55:24 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
This latest episode isn't even a close call. If Cardinal Wuerl doesn't have the guts to deny Communion to an agitprop lesbian Buddhist, he should just close up shop and hand the keys to his chancery over to Obama.

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.

3 posted on 03/19/2012 10:02:58 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

His other nickname is “Donna.”


4 posted on 03/19/2012 10:12:07 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

This needs more press and I’m glad it is getting it.


5 posted on 03/19/2012 10:14:09 AM PDT by battlecry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

“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


6 posted on 03/19/2012 10:17:16 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

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.


7 posted on 03/19/2012 10:30:38 AM PDT by gghd (A Pro-life Palinista & a member of the NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

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.”


8 posted on 03/19/2012 10:40:24 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
I am a faithful Catholic who believes in the consecration at Mass. I believe in the true presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ on the alter, as well as receiving him at Communion. With that in mind I disagree with most of what I see in this article.
The author casts the first stone passing judgment on others. He is upset because Sinners are actually participating in the Faith. Well I got news for you, we are all Sinners. We all make our own choices. Those who receive Communion in a sinful state will need to explain their actions to our God on Judgment Day, not to any one of us. I do not believe the leadership of the Church should be denying Communion to anyone, but in the most rarest of occasions. Each one of us makes these decisions on our own, even at the risk of losing our eternal soul.
I may agree the leadership of the Church could be more vocal in presenting the case against those who attend mass and betray the teachings of the Church. But to withhold the Sacraments is a step beyond our earthly authority, and it will be our just God who will determine the eternal judgment.
9 posted on 03/19/2012 10:47:33 AM PDT by Conductor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conductor
"The author casts the first stone passing judgment on others.

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.

10 posted on 03/19/2012 11:12:44 AM PDT by In Maryland ("Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth!" - Official Motto of the Main Stream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
It's true we're all sinners. That's why we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation ("Confession"). When I approach the Communion rail, the priest doesn't know the state of my soul. He has to assume I'm receiving the Eucharist while properly disposed.

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.

11 posted on 03/19/2012 11:50:12 AM PDT by JoeFromSidney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: In Maryland
That is correct, love the sinner...hate the sin.

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).

12 posted on 03/19/2012 12:20:01 PM PDT by Conductor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney
The Church has never been one to be openly critical of individuals. We all must individually accept our Faith without conditions or qualifications. Judging others goes against this approach. The Church can say that certain actions are directionally in line, (or opposed) to Church teachings, but the condemnation of an individual is not consistent with this approach.
I personally resent the way some wrap themselves in the Faith to promote their own personal agenda, but I can understand why the Church takes a less critical approach.
13 posted on 03/19/2012 12:39:08 PM PDT by Conductor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
Of course, the bishop's passive understanding of his duties and his fear of the liberal elite -- like Wuerl, Niederauer won't deny Communion to Nancy Pelosi either -- invited this outrage. After all, if a bishop announces that he is not a "gatekeeper," who can't come up to receive it? Such passivity was an invitation to abuse and the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" took it. Similarly, the lesbian Buddhist to which Wuerl cravenly apologized seized her chance to stick it to the Church.
14 posted on 03/19/2012 1:00:46 PM PDT by NYer (He who hides in his heart the remembrance of wrongs is like a man who feeds a snake on his chest. St)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Three pages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on receiving Communion

Wuerl's answer is there and we know it!

15 posted on 03/19/2012 2:12:55 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conductor

There is always a middle ground between the Jansenist view and the jesuitical, which is the one now seemingly being followed by the Cardinal.


16 posted on 03/19/2012 10:53:32 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Conductor

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.


17 posted on 03/19/2012 11:08:49 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

“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.


18 posted on 03/20/2012 6:52:48 AM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Conductor
But to withhold the Sacraments is a step beyond our earthly authority,

A prudential opinion contradicted by both Canon Law and Scripture.

19 posted on 03/20/2012 10:03:58 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Conductor
"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).

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.

20 posted on 03/20/2012 10:11:48 AM PDT by In Maryland ("Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth!" - Official Motto of the Main Stream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: In Maryland
The bishops have equivocated on this issue for too long. Bernardin and his allies gave them cover. But notice that Pelosi and others have thrown off the cover of “personally opposed.” Now there is naked assertion that the bishops’ opinion are just wrong. It may well be that she does this upon advise from officials high in the Church that there will be no repercussions.
21 posted on 03/20/2012 10:40:28 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson