Skip to comments.The Scandal That Is Eating the Heart Out of the Catholic Church in America (Wuerl's Web of Lies)
Posted on 03/31/2014 2:43:50 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
Cardinal Donald Wuerl has been the most outspoken of those bishops who refuse to obey Canon 915, but all of them are on record, as he is, as endorsing the commission of MORTAL SINS by their priests and other ministers of Communion. Cardinal Wuerl has even punished those who have obeyed Canon 915.
(Excerpt) Read more at all.org ...
Our Lady of Fatima said that the great apostasy will begin at the top.
We are living in the times of the Great Apostasy.
I doubt it. Those holy priests who do refuse to distribute communion when confronted with persons who present a public scandal (outspoken homosexuals, abortionists) are severely disciplined and/or suppressed.
Denying communion to such people doesn’t jive with the Holy Father’s pastoral mission...
I think whatever heart there was - was eaten away along time ago.
Cardinal Sean O’Malley, of Ted Kennedy funeral fame, was cornered by a journalist several years ago. O’Malley’s comments on giving pro-aborts Communion were 100% political: He said that the bishops must be unanimous on the issue. Nonsense. He said that the bishops must not be seen as singling out a particular political party. Nonsense. And he blamed the Pope (JPII) for not clarifying the issue. Sleazy nonsense.
Cardinal Burke’s famous article dealt with this whole issue exhaustively. http://tinyurl.com/canon915
The disobedient bishops have no strategy other than a vast conspiracy of silence. Or, like Wuerl, Chaput, O’Malley, Dolan, et al., to lie, and hope to deceive enough people to keep the issue at bay.
Couldn’t agree with you more. It’s disheartening.
One can only surmise that the floor of Hell needs repaving.
But the great thing is is that the Gates of Hell will not prevail. They’ve made inroads, but they will not prevail.
Well, in 1968, only one bishop in the entire country, Archbishop Patrick A. O’Boyle of Washington, taught his diocese that Humanae Vitae was the truth, and suspended dissident priests—including his own confessor. The notorious homosexual, Cardinal John Wright, used his Vatican position to cut O’Boyle off at the knees. Today, Wright’s notoriously homosexual secretary, Donald Wuerl, is Archbishop of Washington.
People always speak of the “Gates of Hell” as if they were always moving around, like tanks attacking the Church. Odd.
I’ve wondered about the duty of the priest in that situation. I kept concluding they were duty bound to refuse to obey their Bishop. Is that wrong? Should they be refusing to obey and off communion when doing so violates CCC 915?
Nope- Because it would have a negative cash flow effect on RC Inc.
Nah, not tanks. That would imply it’s an attack from outside of the Church. The Gates of Hell we’re seeing which are even more insidious are the Modernists within the Church.
That’s a good question. Is it akin to the military, i.e, refusing an immoral order? Or is this type of thing covered under the vow of obedience? I dunno.
We’re all in Hell already, unless we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior.
If it’s any consolation, I’m of the younger generation of Catholics who having grown up and catechized in the post Vatican II novus ordo tradition is now rejecting the modernist heresy that’s infected the Church.
Read the whole article.
No bishop has any right to say what Wuerl, Dolan, Chaput, O’Malley and most other bishops are saying: They claim to have a “policy” of not denying Communion to pro-aborts.
They have no right to have such a “policy” because giving Communion to pro-aborts is a MORTAL SIN.
As the Vatican clarified years ago, no bishop can legitimately command his priests to disobey Canon 915. http://tinyurl.com/pont915
All but about a dozen bishops in the U.S. are walking around habitually in the state of mortal sin, because they insist on committing this mortal sin.
As bad as Obama’s Amerika is, we’re not in Hell already. But many people are on their way there.
Wondering just who the author is???
A native of Washington, DC, Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick is a retired priest of the Diocese of Fargo.
So what can we do? I would like nothing better than to smack around my Bishop. Where does obedience end for laymen?
No “vow of obedience” authorizes a superior to command a subject to commit a sin. No bishop has the right to command or even to suggest that his priests commit sin.
Wuerl, O’Malley, Chaput, Dolan, and most other bishops ARE commanding their priests to commit mortal sin. Any bishop who says it is his “policy” to give Communion to pro-aborts is commanding his priests to commit mortal sins, and is committing multiple mortal sins himself.
And here too.
And here too.
Why is this being reposted again and again?
“OMalleys comments on giving pro-aborts Communion were 100% political: He said that the bishops must be unanimous on the issue. Nonsense. He said that the bishops must not be seen as singling out a particular political party. Nonsense. And he blamed the Pope (JPII) for not clarifying the issue. Sleazy nonsense.”
[Note: The following memorandum was sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick and was made public in the first week of July 2004.]
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion
by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding ones worthiness to do so, according to the Churchs objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).
2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to Gods law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
4. Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a persons 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 Churchs 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.
6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” , nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the persons subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the persons public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidates permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidates stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
You must walk away from the Church until it finds it’s way.
It is longer an assistant to salvation but a corrupt quasi-secular operation shielding sexual predators, baby murderers and corrupt power/money mongers.
There is no requirement to be a member of an organized religion in order to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
I walked away and won’t be back until the hierarchy is thrown out and the Church is cleansed. My relationship with Christ is not affected in any way. I still visit churches for prayer, but never during services. I donate no money, and do no volunteer work. I volunteer and minister on my own now.
Cardinal Wuerl has lied publicly and repeatedly about every element of this statement by Cardinal Ratzinger.
Wuerl calls Denial of Communion a “penalty.” He does this because his other lie—that he has a right to have a “Pastoral Approach”—depends on it. Bishops have discretion regarding the imposition of penalties, so Wuerl lies that Denial of Communion is “penalty.”
Cardinal McCarrick lied to the assembled bishops, and hid the existence of the Ratzinger memo from them. They then adopted a “policy” they had no right to adopt: that each bishop may obey or disobey Canon 915 as he pleases.
A bishop who insists on committing the mortal sin of giving Communion to pro-aborts needs to be reminded of his sin often, in every possible forum: letters to the newspapers, flyers under windshield wipers, on Facebook, on Twitter, picket signs...anything that will pierce the conspiracy of silence.
I understand what you’re saying but I can’t walk away. I’m sorry. I can’t let the failings of others keep me away from the Eucharist and the other sacraments. A priest’s ability to confect the Eucharist is independent of his moral state.
We worship Christ and not men.
Totally agree. Which is why I support Michael Voris and his apostolate to expose these things.
It's like spitting into the wind. They simply don't care. They flit about, serenely ignoring the aspects of their duties which are politically uncomfortable. Ironically some of the worst practitioners of "clericalism" as decried by the Pope are now his close advisors.
Except MV will not criticize the pope in this or any other matter. By doing so he only scratches the surface.
That’s true. To avoid causing doubt amongst the faithful and those who are exploring the Faith. I can understand that. Don’t know if I agree with it or not. But I do understand it.
If that is the case, that’s too bad. The Pope is infallible only within a restricted area, morals and dogma, and only on certain occasions. Otherwise, the Pope can hold all sorts of ill-advised opinions and do all sorts of imprudent things. And the laity have all the freedom and right to call the Pope’s attention to his imprudence and errors that they have with any other bishop.
On this matter of Communion for pro-aborts, the Pope has been as negligent as any bishop in the world—except for those American bishops (Wuerl, Dolan, Chaput, O’Malley, etc.) who have deliberately spread B.S. on the subject.
I can believe that from the example he set right from the beginning. Though if the Pope actually takes such a position, is there a point to the Church overall? Or it just an object of adoration in itself to those faithful who cling but to its entrails?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Im of the younger generation of Catholics who having grown up and catechized in the post Vatican II novus ordo tradition is now rejecting the modernist heresy thats infected the Church.
...pax Domini sit semper tecum...
The Pope is not the Church. He holds a particular job in the hierarchy of the Church. He may be shallow, or a leftist, or an adulterer, or a camera-hound—whatever. And the laity have the right to clamor about his faults.
But the Church has a history, and hundreds of thousands of saints, and millions of martyrs, and great theologians, and a developed body of dogma, and the liturgy, and the sacraments, and an artistic and musical patrimony.
When it comes to “reasons” for leaving the Church, the faults of a particular Pope don’t amount to a hill of beans.
Because the scandal hasn’t ended yet.
There’s always a point to the Church. To unite us in Christ through the Sacraments. We’ve had good popes and bad popes. Murderers, adulterers, etc. We worship Christ and not men.
I’ve seen three popes in my lifetime now. When JPII died I was somewhat distraught because I’d never experienced a conclave and didn’t know what to expect. I was ecstatic when Pope Benedict XVI was elected and subsequently dismayed at his resignation. Now we have Pope Francis. He obviously has a different approach to his Petrine ministry.
I couldn’t care less about his opinion on economics, the environment or government. In that regard he’s just another bum with an opinion and I’m not duty-bound to agree with him or concur with any of his pronouncements of a non-dogmatic nature. As for his pastoral approach I turn to the words of Cardinal Arinze when he said that not all Popes will have the same style or emphasis and that with BXVI’s resignation this will help us mature in our Faith.
Is a Jesuit-based Franciscan spirituality in our Holy Father what this world needs? In the final analysis I cannot say. I’ll let God work His will in that regard. What I do know is that faithful traditional Catholics who have a yearning to worship as we once did are being suppressed and when it comes to matters of discipline in the Church they are the ones suffering and doing so in humility and obedience to the Church. All the while the spiritual arm of the Democrat party (Read: USCCB)gets away with violating the Canons with impunity and leading fellow Catholics to scandal with their vacillation. It is our Catholic duty as lay men and women to correct our priests, bishops and sometimes even the Pope when the need arises.
The point is that as Catholics we believe the Church is Christ. Even if its appointed earthly representatives don’t always comport themselves to the teachings of the Church. After all it is a Church comprised of human sinners. The walking wounded and sometimes the doctors commit malpractice. However that does not diminish the love we have for the Church. We love it as we love Him. We do adore it and we won’t leave it. Even if we have to suffer for being a part of the Body of Christ.
Et semper tecum!
Bravo to that particular Voris video.
Unfortunately it appears that the majority of one trick pony “social justice” clerics have been permanently brainwashed. Having interacted with many Catholics who are “Die Hard Democrats” (priest included) I think Tobin’s epiphany unlikely to spark a trend. Furthermore, I have noticed that the most egregious, traitorous hypocrites within the priesthood are of the flagrantly lavender variety. The pro-abort pols who also support the homosexual agenda are singing their tune, so why would they want to step on their toes?
My theory is that Wuerl knows that if he riles Nancy Pelosi, she will phone the Washington Post, and his private life will be splashed across the front page. It is obvious that the killing of babies doesn’t actually trouble him.
I know you’re both right, and that I just need be reigned in a little.
The funny thing is I’m Noachide. But I studied Catholicism in my youth, and do care about it, and Christianity overall. The United States could not have been founded without it.
Which Modernism, as we all know, is a HERESY. Defined by Pope St. Pius X in “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” 1907. He called it the “synthesis of all heresies.” Ergo, heretics within the Church.
Regarding your post #43, AMEN! I feel & struggle with the same, I just don’t have the words or clarity of expression that you do, THANK YOU for these today...
Blessings to You & All FReepers,
“Our Lady of Fatima said that the great apostasy will begin at the top.”
Do you know of a good book on Fatima? One that contains most everything, but doesn’t run to a thousand pages?