Archbishop Wuerl, under fire for his passivity in the face of pro-abortion politicians receiving communion at both the Papal Mass and in various churches throughout Washington, attempts to clear the air but instead creates a thousand-word cloud:
A decision regarding the refusal of Holy Communion to an individual is one that should be made only after clear efforts to persuade and convince the person that their actions are wrong and bear moral consequences. Presumably this is done in the home diocese where the bishops and priests, the pastors of souls, engage the members of their flock in this type of discussion. In the case of public figures who serve in Washington as representatives of other parts of the nation, this dialogue and any decisions would take place within their home diocese.
I have always respected the role of the local Church and the ministry of the individual bishop as shepherd of the Church entrusted to his care. For that reason, I have not accepted the suggestions that the Archdiocese of Washington or episcopal conferences have some particular role that supersedes the authority of an individual bishop in his particular Church.
While this issue will continue to be raised, it is important to recognize that in this archdiocese the teaching on the evil of abortion will continue to be an important part of our ministry as will the effort to convince and persuade others to accept that teaching.
Regarding the "home diocese" defense, I think he's right to suggest that's where the intervention should begin. But that doesn't leave him off the hook when an offending politician repeatedly appears "palms up" in his parishes. I'll use the analogy of a troublesome neighborhood boy. When he first shows up at your home and makes a mess of the place or uses foul language, you would expect his parents to discipline or police him. But if in short order he makes it a practice to abuse your house, break your rules, and in general act like an ingrate, you would presumably put your foot down.
Posts
10 comments:
I am completely discouraged on this issue.
Clearly, those of us who believe that communion should be denied to Catholics who publicly defend and even advocate for abortion are wrong. Most of the bishops, include Abp Wuerl, Cardinal George and even the Holy Father, have refused to take the simple action that would be required.
And we haven't a leg to stand on. We can cite canon law, we can yell and scream, we can point to Burke and Bruskewitz and now even Egan, but clearly the Pope and the (vast majority of the) bishops are united in teaching that communion should not be denied to prominent abortion supports.
This seems like a pretty difficult thing to enforce. Should we ask each person receiving Communion to show ID, and then check a database to see where they stand on various issues in order to determine if they should receive Communion or not? Why should a politician be punished simply because he is more recognizable compared to Joe Shmoe (for the purpose of picking a name) who also holds and advocates the same incorrect views, but doesn't have a recognizable face? In my opinion, we shouldn't deny Communion to those who have sinned, but instead should rely on those people to make their own decision after examining their conscience as to whether they are worthy to receive the Lord. It's really a tough subject. Obviously they shouldn't receive Communion, but it doesn't seem right only to deny it to the recognizable personalities.
~Dr. K
Why should a politician be punished simply because he is more recognizable compared to Joe Shmoe ...
Because canon law makes that distinction due to the increased risk of scandal. And it isn't a matter of punishment.
Paul:
Be not discouraged, rather resolve to be the spine for those who lack one. Discouragement is precisely what the enemy seeks
In my own parish, a local arm of MoveOn.org, Micah's Call, has taken root. This organization has a webpage on our Parish web site (http://www.stmaryhydepark.org/parishgroups/smhpGroup.asp?pf=65&group=59&sp=1) which provides the faithful to links such as the following:
"Dear Catholic Bishops of the United States of America,
Thank you for refusing to forbid Catholic participation in the unjust wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This moral betrayal of the men and women of your military was a bold display of religious hypocrisy! Your moral laxism and relativism helped me entice the U.S. into unjust war. Without your tacit support, this would have been much more difficult than it turned out to be. Sine poena nulla lex!
I read at your conference's website that war is no longer peace, now it is "Responsible Transition." Many thanks to whoever coined that phrase. I could not have said it better myself. Please continue to advocate this "Responsible Transition". It is the direct path of violence and collective punishment that ensures support for my jihad. Hundreds of thousands have already been killed, many of them were women and children. More deaths are to come! Your tacit religious consent for this murder of the innocent is critical to my success. Your material cooperation with the objective evil of unjust war makes my victory inevitable. Therefore, I say stay this course of moral laxism that destroys your witness to life!
Catholic Bishops of America, I salute you! You are among my best friends and supporters anywhere in the world. Thanks to the aid and comfort you give me, my triumph will come sooner than you think!
Sincerely,
Osama Bin Laden"
That our Pastor does not see any problem with this type of abuse of parish resources can be discouraging. However, at those times I remember that the path of the righteous is not easy and we must have the fortitude to stand against evil even when it is very close (in the same pew).
God bless you - do not give up the fight.
- Furious But Not Discouraged
Re, Paul:
Do not be discouraged, for that is what the enemy seeks. Do be indignant that his Eminence seems not to understand the scandal involved.
This is the time to admonish Weurl for his error. Letters need to be written, by groups where possible. As many signatures expressing our protest of his inactions and indifference to the souls of those politicians in his care (precisely because they are in his territory much of the time).
Letters also need to be written to the Papal Nuncio and even to Rome itself. Also our prayers need to reach Heaven in force for our clergy, and in reparation for these sacrileges that are continually heaped up to fuel the coming wrath.
They also need to go out for our priests and seminarians, that the Lord will give them strength and boldness to proclaim the truth, and console them in the persecution that will come for doing so.
Enough is enough.
You're all missing my point. It is very evidently the settled teaching of the Catholic Church -- the Pope and the bishops in unison, teaching by example -- that even the most prominent and vocal supporter of abortion cannot face even the slightest canonical consequence for their advocacy.
And why is this? My best guess is that there are too many non-prominent supporters of abortion, they simply don't want it to be a sin.
And why are the bishops on board? Again, one can only guess. Perhaps it's much harder to govern than to teach and pray. Perhaps governance is where the teaching is given teeth, and a toothless teaching is much less frightening.
As it is, the stated policy is that any bishop is free to take action on this issue, or not. And so the vast majority (the exceptions can be counted on the fingers of one hand) take the path of least resistance. I expect that in future, it will be enforced that no bishop may deny communion to prominent abortion rights advocates.
Clearly, as evidenced by the determined refusal to act by the bishops, the papal nuncio, and even the Holy Father, there is no danger to the souls of Speaker Pelosi, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, Senator Dodd, and all the rest (I could mention from my own state Senator Durbin, Mayor Daley, Governor Blagojevich, and many other pro-aborts who are routinely admitted to communion by Cardinal George).
Just as clearly, there is no danger of legitimate scandal on the part of the laity. Clearly there is nothing wrong with people like me being led to believe that it is fully acceptable to dissent from the toothless teaching that abortion is wrong, and even to dissent publicly. Such dissent is not and should not be any barrier to receiving communion.
I can confidently say this because, if souls were in danger, if scandal were a concern, surely the bishops would not wait to be deluged with letters from the laity. The Church is not a democracy. The rules to be followed are explicit.
Either, for the good of the soul of the public dissenter, and for the avoidance of scandal, a public abortion supporter should be denied communion; or else it's OK to dissent from the Church's teaching on abortion. The bishops are not stupid men; they know what is at stake. Clearly, given their actions, there is really no problem.
Or else they are negligent on such a scale as to boggle the mind. I don't see a third possibility here.
I am confused; am I responsible to the Holy Trinity or to my Archbishop if an when I commit sins, for example: being pro-death (contraception, abortion, stem cell research, and etc.) and disrepectful to God by committing the mortal sin of receiving Jesus' Body and Blood while in a state of the previous mortal sin? Why do we want play God, versus carrying out the will of God in educating our fallen brothers and sisters? The judgement of souls "thing" is up to God not us. We have free-will and as humans make mistakes and sin, some grave. We have to use that free-will to return to Jesus and His Church; and the priest or bishop should educate us prior to the start of Mass. Are we going to have to debate over our sactity (when was the last time we went to the Sacrament of Confession and were we truly sorry for the sin of supporting the culture of death) while standing before the Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, or lay minister? Because if we don't "come clean" in Church everyone else in Church will be privately judging our actions? Or, if some are well-known and sinful personalities; should they be required to make a public confession at the ambo before Mass starts, in order to receive Holy Communion?
Personally, I think the mortal sin of spiritual sloth is more rampant among Catholics than is the mortal sin of lust.
Apparently, "anonymous" never has pondered the question as to whether a refusal to shepherd the impenitent (including excommunication, if obdurate) would be the mortal sin of spiritual sloth?
Paul:
Here is the point you are missing -you will be discouraged so long as you put your faith in men. They are weak pray for them.
We can take some comfort that this issue is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church. The LDS have a similar problem with Senator Harry Reid. In the annual meeting with his Ward's Bishop I suspect he is taken to task -- but no official "public" action is taken against him.
I imagine that this is due to the Church/State tenor and the pride in having a LDS member as Senate Majority Leader. This plays out no differently in the Roman Catholic Church. Let's call a spade a spade - by and large the Bishops would much rather have the gala dinner with the Kennedy's then break bread with the Paul's in the Diocese/Archdiocese. Rest assured, the invites from the Kennedy's will tend to dissipate should the Bishops take in interest in their souls.
- Furious but not Discouraged
PS: Anon 12:41 PM, making the simple complex is a common means to obviate evil. That is why amorphous references such as “the Culture of Death” are not helpful. In fact we do have a very simple litmus test on a very narrow issue – abortion.
Paul:
I do understand the point. However, we should in all charity limit ourselves to His Eminence Archbishop Weurl, for it was his particular church that was in charge of the mass and handled the distribution of Holy Communion. And it is Weurl who is the apparent obdurate party in this scandal.
As for Rome, you've heard their view on it. It's up to us to demand it not just be toothless, but that they stand up and demand obedience from AmChurch once and for all.
Post a Comment