Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Washington Gets Wuerl



Bishop (soon to be Cardinal) Wuerl has been named as the replacement for the retiring Cardinal McCarrick of the Diocese of Washington, D.C. Being the seat of the Nation's capitol in some ways it could be said that this is the most prestigious and influential Bishopric in the country. Naturally with that amount of power comes massive responsibility.

Bishop Wuerl is a big believer in collegiality. Collegiality has become on of those "uh-oh" words. It signals a horizontal model of liberal leadership rather than hierarchical. And on no issue is this approach more flawed than on the matter of abortion. During the 2004 Presidential election, Senator John Kerry, a self professed Catholic who supports abortion anytime and anyplace without restriction, was censured by a few (way too few) Bishops; Bishops who stated publicly that if John Kerry presented himself for Holy Communion he would be denied.

However the liberal Bishops sought to find a way to protest that though they say they are prolife they do not expect John Kerry to be prolife. That would be asking Way Too Much. After all Senator Kerry is from Boston (and France)and we have transcended all that sentimentality here and do not tolerate Catholicism in our politicians.

Cardinal McCarrick first spun a document from the Vatican that declared proabortion politicans should not be given Holy Communion and concluded that it said the exact opposite. Unfortunately, McCarrick was not alone in this approach. His willing accomplice was Bishop Wuerl. In this letter on the subject, Wuerl states the following:


Refusal of Communion implies, according to applicable Church law, that the person who is not admitted to Holy Communiion is one who is excommunicated or interdicted, or obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin. (cfC915)


Seems to me that that is the very basis for refusing Communion to proabortion politicians. But then Wuerl parses and parses some more. I think he will be a natural in Washington.


Given the long standing practice of not making a public judgment about the state of the soul of those who present themselves for Holy Communion, it does not seem that it is sufficiently clear that in the matter of voting for legislation that supports abortion such a judgment necessarily follows. The pastoral tradition of the Church places the responsibility of such a judgment first on those presenting themselves for Holy Communion.


Don't understand that conclusion? Well, no one does because it doesn't make any sense. Ever courageously, Wuerl goes on to state that there may be Other Sanctions. He proposes:

- Proabortion politicians being made unwelcome at Catholic Colleges
- Proabortion politicians not receiving honorary degrees and awards from Catholic colleges, and
- Proabortion politicians being barred from using Catholic facilities.



Guess that didn't work out too well.

Bishop Wuerl proposes a "national collegial" approach:


"One such approach would be an actual mechanism of the conference to facilitate some consensus and unified pastoral practice," he said. "Another approach, which would be less formal but perhaps more effective, would be the commitment on the part of all the bishops to discuss beforehand, through some conference structure, decisions that will impact all of the bishops and the church as a whole."

He said a formal mechanism of review by the conference before barring a politician from Communion would require either a two-thirds vote of the bishops and a mandate from the Vatican or a completely unanimous decision by the bishops.


This would effectively tie the hands of any Bishop who wanted to correct anyone. And I guess that is the goal. Silence the few courageous bishops and our opposition to abortion becomes merely rhetorical and theoretical. Afterall it's not as if babies are really dying or anything. Oh, right, I guess they are.

6 comments:

Stephen said...

Even if his lofty pseudo-democratic process of voting on Holy Communion denials would come to pass, there is virtually no way to punish a bishop who decides against the will of the conference to deny Kerry and others Holy Communion.

We've seen several cases where pastoral corrections have been urged and they have no teeth.

Tradcatholic said...

Rather than the 'pastoral corrections' having no teeth, it may be that the bishops have the teeth but refuse to bite. Looking good and friendly and compassionate and understanding in the eyes of the people of the diocese is a stronger force than the directives from Rome and Tradition. Sometimes I think that the testosterone level is somewhat low.

Anonymous said...

I'm an ardent republican and hopefully devout Catholic but I have no problem with this position---not denying communion to politicians. We are ALL sinners. Why isolate kerry & others from the Eucharist? Lobby them, write them, protest them but Christ forgave all sinners...even Peter who denied him 3 times. Hope & pray that his catholic half eventually converts his proabortion half. Peace!

Tradcatholic said...

Yes, anon, we are all sinners. But, before we go to communion we go to confession and get rid of any serious sin. Part of being forgiven is a firm purpose of ammendment not to do the sin again. In the case of the politicians in question, they are REALLY PUBLIC sinners and keep on over and over again doing the same sin dispite the admonishment of the bishop. When grave scandal is involved, and we are ALL scandalized, the bishop/priest not only has the right to forbid reception of Holy Communion but is obliged to do so!! Yes, Christ forgave sinners and what did he say...?..."go, and sin NO MORE". This is the whole core of this debate. You ask why 'isolate' Kerry and others from the Eucharist? Just because they are public sinners and show no effort to amend their ways. ANYONE in the state of mortal sin may not approach the Eucharist. If the priest were to know that a particular person was in mortal sin, but it was not a publicly known sin, then he is FORBIDDEN to deny the Eucharist even thought he knows that this person commits another grave sin of sacrilege in doing so --because it is not known to others and he may not make this known. When a person who denies the Faith publically and approaches the Eucharist, the scandal to others is grave and the priest must refuse. It has been so through the ages, this is not new!!

Thomas Shawn said...

"Bishop Wuerl proposes a 'national collegial' approach".

Time for me to move to the Philippines.

Anonymous said...

Very nice site!
bsa license plate frames provigil addiction oldsmobile 57 parts 94 buick regal personalized floor mats car volvo parts chase visa cards 2006 lancer oz body kit dry ice machine plans dupont coat of arms auto insurance free quote