Bishop Wuerl to replace Cardinal McCarrick
Pope Benedict XVI has named Bishop Donald Wuerl, 65, of Pittsburgh, to replace Cardinal Theodore McCarrick as Archbishop of Washington, D.C.
R. Scott Appleby and Father Thomas Reese, S.J., are happy. So must be all the pro-abortion Catholic politicians to whom Bishop Wuerl has said he would not "feel comfortable" denying the Holy Eucharist. In 2005, he proposed that no U.S. bishop say anything about "divisive issues" such as Communion for pro-aborts without "consulting" his fellow bishops first.
There is no word on how the 4,000 preborn babies who will be aborted today, the 4,000 tomorrow, the 4,000 the day after that, and on and on, feel about Bishop Wuerl. We do know they will not "feel comfortable" as the Catholic-politician-supported abortionists slay them.
USA Today (click on this post's title) has this to say about Bishop Wuerl (my edits are in brackets):
"During the 2004 elections when some bishops pledged to deny [C]ommunion to politicians who support abortion rights [sic], such as Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, Wuerl served on a bishops['] task force that called for a different definition of 'faithful citizenship' for Catholics. Led by McCarrick, the task force called for assessing politicians by a broad range of peace, social justice and environmental issues. McCarrick was thrashed by conservative Catholic commentators, but the Vatican accepted the task force's report.
"[Father] Reese calls Wuerl 'a pastoral conservative. He's theologically quite Orthodox and loyal to the pope, but he thinks it's not a good idea to play cop at the communion rail. He's smart. He's articulate. He's prudent. It's not going to be a radical change from McCarrick.'"
Cardinal Mahony and soon-to-be-Archbishop Wuerl: Opposite-coast bookends?
R. Scott Appleby and Father Thomas Reese, S.J., are happy. So must be all the pro-abortion Catholic politicians to whom Bishop Wuerl has said he would not "feel comfortable" denying the Holy Eucharist. In 2005, he proposed that no U.S. bishop say anything about "divisive issues" such as Communion for pro-aborts without "consulting" his fellow bishops first.
There is no word on how the 4,000 preborn babies who will be aborted today, the 4,000 tomorrow, the 4,000 the day after that, and on and on, feel about Bishop Wuerl. We do know they will not "feel comfortable" as the Catholic-politician-supported abortionists slay them.
USA Today (click on this post's title) has this to say about Bishop Wuerl (my edits are in brackets):
"During the 2004 elections when some bishops pledged to deny [C]ommunion to politicians who support abortion rights [sic], such as Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, Wuerl served on a bishops['] task force that called for a different definition of 'faithful citizenship' for Catholics. Led by McCarrick, the task force called for assessing politicians by a broad range of peace, social justice and environmental issues. McCarrick was thrashed by conservative Catholic commentators, but the Vatican accepted the task force's report.
"[Father] Reese calls Wuerl 'a pastoral conservative. He's theologically quite Orthodox and loyal to the pope, but he thinks it's not a good idea to play cop at the communion rail. He's smart. He's articulate. He's prudent. It's not going to be a radical change from McCarrick.'"
Cardinal Mahony and soon-to-be-Archbishop Wuerl: Opposite-coast bookends?
posted by Quintero at 9:52 PM
16 Comments:
Play "cop" at the "communion rail?" What communion rail? Where? I'd like to see one.
Shouldn't we respect the Holy Father's selection of Wuerl, as opposed to mocking it? Catholicism calls us to something that transcends partisan politics, it seems the Vatican agrees.
I wonder who has Benedict's ear on this kind of thing. I mean, how insulated is he? I know he's half a world away but, come on. This, we don't need.
Quintero...."opposite-coast bookends"? Huh? You seem to have conveniently left out Wuerl's removal of pedophile priests before the scandal broke, and his later call for a "zero tolerance" policy on pedophile priests. Which, is an issue that seems to loom rather large for you and your acolytes as long as Mahony is in the crosshairs. How come this was left out of your post? If it wasn't, we could've been spared the throwaway line "opposite-coast bookends".....right? Perhaps this blog shouldn't be about Catholicism at all.....hhhhmmmm....hhhhmmmm....nod, nod....wink, wink???
Dear Anonymous 1:58 p.m.,
Pro-life Catholics do not play partisan politics. The apologists in the hierarchy who protect pro-abortion Catholic Democrat pols are the partisan ones.
There is no mocking in my post, just sadness. The "bookends" remark at the end simply points out Wuerl-Mahony similarities.
The Vatican precisely has said it does not agree with Communion for pro-abortion Catholic politicians.
Dear Anonymous 12:41 p.m.,
Excellent point. Someday Communion rails will return.
Dear Jared,
Good question. Cardinal Levada is in such a position of influence that he could be one, or the one.
Dear Anonymous 3:33 p.m.,
Bishops are supposed to be good in ALL aspects under their purview.
Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Wuerl are total bookends in their refusal to withhold Communion from abortion-backing Catholic pols.
As for the molester issue -- give me time! No one post can be encyclopedic. It is interesting that you say "pedophile priests" when most cases are of homosexual molestation of youths.
Quintero, in all fairness "pedophile priest" covers all the bases, and is a perfectly appropriate term. The fact that you say "most" cases are homosexual molestations, doesn't change that. Most is simply.. most, not all...or an absolute. But, please let's not split hairs over semantics, I'm only "anonymous 3:33" and not Umberto Eco.
Also, when you said the Vatican "precisely" doesn't agree with giving pro-abort Catholic politicians Communion. How so?...in a precise way. I'm sure you and your readers are aware that JPII gave Communion to pro-abort Rutelli a number of years ago. How can you or anyone know with any certainty what took place to allow that? If we can't then we are making assumptions, which borders on gossip etc...and is a road we probably should make a point not to travel down as Catholics. Who had JPII's ear on that one? Possibly Benedict? I dunno! Also, you state in your post that Wuerl worked on a "task force" headed by McCarrick that turned in a report that would've been opposed to the "precise" position you say the Vatican holds on this issue...and yet, rather than be admonished Wuerl seems to be rewarded. We're gonna have a lot of bookends!..me thinks!
I do however agree that abortion is the most important issue out there, but it does not reduce other issues to zero relevance. If it did, the Vatican would simply not issue statements about anything else. Or simply, discard the whole of Catholic social teaching...and replace it with a statement that said "no abortion, under any circumstance...because it holds primary importance....and other social issues don't matter as a result". Or...something to that effect.
I'm all for a more traditional approach to Catholicism and support of it's dogmas and doctrines, and look forward to Mahony's replacement....however it is made to happen. But, in my mind some of the "selectiveness" seems to attack your own credibility at times. That said, it is your blog and your POV.....and I respect that and agree with your positions most of the time, but at times you come off as if you and your readers think you are blogging "ex cathedra".
Guys, all the different anonymouses (anonymi?) are confusing the crap outta me.
Now, this isn't my blog so, Quintero, forgive me if I'm overstepping my bounds but ... is it possible you guys could at least end your posts with a moniker of some kind? Doesn't have to be your real name since some of you may have valid reasons to remain anonymous.
But come on, get creative. Call yourself "the Yellow Dart" or "the Insane Potato" or something.
Seriously.
Regarding Anonymous' use of "Pedophile priest", it is my understanding that most of the allegations of abuse were in fact homosexual acts with pubescent youths, and not actually instances of pedophilia with prepubescent children.So, the use of the word"pedophilia" may be overly broad.
From one anonymous to another
Anonymous 12:40pm...isn't that post a bit redundant? Quintero basically said the same thing in his response 5/17 4:11pm, and anonymous 3:33 and 6:36 (now, apparently JohnPaulFootball,if I've followed correctly here) replied to that...making a good point, considering this isn't really about the scandal in and of itself....and we all know what is meant to be communicated. What seems to be at issue is the comparison of Wuerl and Mahony....agreed? Probably not. The need to "frame" everything to one's interests strikes me as a bit pathetic.
Dear John Paul Football,
Here is how the Vatican precisely says it does not agree with giving Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians:
CULTURE & COSMOS
July 6, 2004 Volume 1, Number 48
Memo Reveals Ratzinger's Support For Communion Ban
A confidential document written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to leading American prelates has been made public and reveals that the Vatican's leading theologian believes Communion should be denied to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion. The revelation of the six-paragraph memorandum and its unambiguous position comes in the aftermath of a highly public debate among America's Bishops on whether pro-abortion politicians like John Kerry should be denied Communion.
Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Vatican-based Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, begins the memo by stressing the serious nature of receiving Communion and the need for each person to make "a conscious decision" regarding their worthiness based on "the Church's objective criteria." But the Cardinal notes that this does not mean that it is only the individual who determines whether or not to receive Communion. "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"
The memo states that Catholics are obligated to oppose laws that permit abortion and euthanasia. A Catholic politician "consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" is guilty of formal cooperation according to the memo. In such a situation the politician's pastor ought to explain the Church's teaching and tell him not to receive Communion, "warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist."
If such a politician "still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, 'the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it'" wrote Cardinal Ratzinger, quoting a declaration from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Such a denial does not mean that the minister of Communion is judging the politician's soul but is a reflection that he is in a state of obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin. "Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."
Whether Communion should be denied to a politician who supports the
death penalty or differs with the Pope on what constitutes a just war is one of the most persistent questions that arises whenever the denial of Communion is debated. Cardinal Ratzinger answers no. "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. . . . 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."
An English version of the document appeared on the Italian news site
www.espressonline.it. The memo had previously been referenced in a interim report by a task force of seven bishops established to address the Communion question. The topic was also addressed by the body of American Bishops during a mid-June meeting. At the meeting the Bishops approved a document titled "Catholics in Political Life" which had harsh words for pro-abortion leaders but did not make specific recommendations on whether or not they should be denied Communion instead leaving the decision to
individual Bishops.
Copyright, 2004 --- Culture of Life Foundation.
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500 Fax: (202) 289-2502
E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org
Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org
Dear John Paul Football,
What Pope Benedict XVI has been saying about the need to fight abortion, and what Pope John Paul II identically said in Evangelium Vitae and elsewhere, means that the imperative to fight abortion does not obviate Catholic social teaching but that it is a central part of Catholic social teaching.
Catholic thinkers now are saying that social justice cannot exist at all if one class of people is killing another class of people, as is the case with abortion.
Dear John Paul Football,
God bless you, too.
Who can understand the Rutelli incident? But one thing is SURE: No one can possibly read into that one instance some sort of Papal command to never withhold Communion from notorious and publicly unrepentant politicians who facilitate baby-dismemberment.
Please feel free to bring up just war theory and social issues besides aborting babies. Not all of them, though, will be relevant to our Archdiocese and the scope of "onelacatholic" -- and that is why I do not bring them up often.
So many people think pro-lifers such as me are really just down-the-line lockstep Republicans, and they are completely wrong. Saving babies and helping moms is about much more than politics -- but that does not mean we can vote for the pro-aborts of any party.
If it is "pedantic filibustering" and "polemics" to repeat Catholic teaching about the primacy of stopping the slaughter of God's babies and about withholding Communion from pro-aborts, then I gladly plead guilty as charged; otherwise, not guilty at all.
Dear Baron,
Cardinal Ratzinger's complete statement cannot be interpreted to allow Communion for politicians who facilitate the dismemberment of innocent millions of children.
Recall, also: Cardinal Arinze has said emphatically and more than once that there is no question that pro-abortion politicians should be refused Communion.
Post a Comment
<< Home