AmericanPapist Comments
I'm with you! It's not a caferteria!! No beliefs, no communion.
BTW Isn't Wuerl supposed to be a goodie?? Why didn't he stop it?
I have a feeling that Wuerl's just trying to keep the status quo. (which is of course a huge mistake.) McCarrick was old and weak.
Since American Bishops seem reluctant to punish (in some way) pro-Death Catholic politicians, would that constitute "formal cooperation"???
Would this and should it apply to high-ranking Church clerics? "The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life" Hello?
I really don't see how Kerry and Kennedy could not be excommunicated. It's mind-boggling.
You have to wonder if any of the parties involved actually believe in the Real Presence. You just have to wonder.
Wuerl should know better, and know that if a cleric defiles the Eucharist, absolution for this is reserved to the holy see. This could be his soul here, what is he thinking.
Wuerl was bishop of Pittsburgh, Teresa Heinz Kerry's home diocese. This came up frequently during the campaign. Neither Wuerl nor any of his priests ever treated Kerry with anything but glad-handing and big smiles. Not one challenge.
Maybe it is just a case of prudence: noone wanted the archbishop's installation to be overshadowed by the media outrage had Kerry and Kennedy been publicly refused. Sometimes we have to tolerate an evil in order to prevent a greater evil. For the new bishop to arrive and, in effect, say he will "kick butt" without even giving anyone a gentle reminder might be ceding the high ground.
Just a thought.
It is impossible for anyone who had access to a TV set or to a newspaper by the time of the last American presidential campaingn not to recognize Kerry at sight.
The only possible conclusion is that Pontifical Representative ignored the directive.
"his Pastor should meet with him . . . ."
Contra Prof. Basto, WRY's point seems to be consistent with this part of the directive. To the extent that the Archbishop of Washington is Kerry's Pastor while the Senator is in the archdiocese, it would seem to be incumbent upon him to meet with Kerry [and other Catholic politicians who have consistently campaigned and voted for permissive abortion laws], instruct them about the Church’s teaching, inform them that they are not to present themselves for Holy Communion until they bring to an end the objective situation of sin, and warn them that they will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. Then if Kerry et al. with obstinate persistance still present themselves to receive the Eucharist, the Archbishop should refuse to distribute it and he should instruct his priests to do likewise.
The eventual outcome may seem obvious, but prudence suggests that before one concludes that he is "ignoring the directive," Archbishop Wuerl should be given a chance to instruct, inform, and warn the errant politicians in person. His predecessor's apparent failure to do so ought not be charged against the new archbishop.
As for Archbishop Sambi, he's only been the Apostolic Nuncio for six months. As notable as the Kerry-Communion flap may have been in the States, he wasn't here then, thus I don't think the only possible conclusion is that he ignored the directive.
There is, shall we say, a "reasonable doubt" in my mind that Sambi recognized either Kerry or Teddy. One can be sure, though, he's been shown their photos since this all erupted. Therefore, the next case will be highly instructive.
I personally take the long view on stuff like this. Sure there seems to be plenty of inconsistency of views among American bishops, but that's because all of those bishops came up during a time when the teaching of Catholic truth was overwhelmingly inconsistent.
The reality is that in 30 years kids who were trained at Sacred Heart and various other solidly Catholic seminaries will be leading the Church. That's why I don't see any reason to get all bent out of shape. Things will be a WHOLE LOT better. It's just going to take time.
See, I think it is the whole "Latin approach to law" versus the "Anglo-Saxon approach to law" conflict. Italians make rules for the sake of purity, not practicality. Certainly the nuncio knew who John Kerry was. But is the common good better served by applying the directive strictly in this case? Obviously the nuncio decided that it wasn't in this case. If then-Cardinal Ratzinger could give communion to Protestant Brother Roger during the Pope's funeral mass (and there was no question but that Cardinal Ratzinger knew who Brother Roger was), isn't that the model for the practical application of such laws? In other words, the communion line is not where these things should be hashed out.
Nowhere in the GIRM does it state that the presider should shake hands during a liturgical procession. Why these guys have to act like glad-fisted politicians I don't know.
Of course, Sen. Santorum couldn't attend because he was awaiting word of more bogus WMD finds in Iraq.
It isn't that simple, Mr. Papist. Kerry hasn't made abortion legal nor has he procured any abortions. He, like many Catholics, doesn't believe that making abortion illegal will work.
Most Americans don't like abortion and want to see a reduction in abortions. That opinion is shared by many lawmakers as well.
You and I both know that making abortion illegal will result in two things 1)a small decrease in abortions 2)a large increase in illegal, unsafe abortions.
The best compromise on this divided issue is to forget about its legal status and work to reduce abortions either through better education (abstinence AND contraception) and through more support of pregnant women.
I think that's the best we can do at this point. We need to present our opposition to abortion in non-religious and non-dogmatic terms, otherwise our Catholic position (which I fully support and agree with) will fall on deaf ears.
People like Kerry should show some backbone and stop supporting the virtually pro-abortion groups.
Mike, thanks for your comment. However, I have to disagree with you on several points.
The document I reference by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) clearly shows that John Kerry is not eligible to present himself for communion because he has voted for abortion legislation (to name one thing).
Second, you cannot say that you "fully support and agree with our Catholic position" on these issues when you support contraception. The Church doesn't support contraception. Did you really mean to say "abstinence AND contraception" is the right approach?
Actually Mike, it is that simple. I think Cardinal Arinze put it best when asked, "Should Catholic legislators who support legal abortion 'be refused' Communion?" he responded, "I ask you, do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to find the answer?" It's that simple.
In addition, he quipped, "Are there no children from First Communion to whom you can pose the question and receive the answer? You do not need a cardinal to answer that. Because it is a straightforward matter." Simple.
Í'm afraid I've got to disagree with those who suggest what the Nunico did (assuming he knew what he was doing) was permissable. Yes, it is permissable to tolerate evil to prevent a great er evil, but it is not permissble to commit and evil act to preven a greater one and for a cleric to give communion to a person who is clearly not in a fit state to receive is clearly an evil act. The relevant section of cannon law says that a priest must refuse communion to those who are in obstinate sin, it doesnt leave any discretion.
Mike, you've adopted the language and the logic of the pro-abort crowd.
1.2 million abortions per year -- but we should work on the margins, donating cribs and formula and ignoring the slaughter?
Partial-birth abortion is dangerous to the woman and absolutely barbaric to the child -- but illegal abortions could be "unsafe?"
Should the North have compromised on slavery, or the Jews with Nazi Germany?
For those who advocate "abandoning" the legal fight, I'd recommend that they read first the majority opinions, then the dissenting opinions, of both Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Stenberg v. Carhart (2000).
The highest court in the land -- the one we believe will protect everyone's liberty -- has repeatedly ignored the most innocent lives in the US, while tossing up a fusillade of legal claptrap and medicinal language.
Read the majority opinions -- those babies simply don't exist. Out of sight, out of mind.
Then read the dissents -- and you suddenly see how grotesque we've become.
Parental notification, spousal notification, informed consent, etc., etc., ad nauseum -- all these have been attacked at every step along the way, in every district court, Court of Appeals, etc.
And any law that escapes a permanent injunction must have a "health exception" or a judicial bypass -- making them meaningless.
I'm not denying that there is a moral/cultural component to be communicated, but this is most definitely a legal fight -- for when one person's liberty trumps anothers life, both life and liberty will eventually disappear.
Commenting by HaloScan
