AmericanPapist Comments
Not quite the punch we were hoping for, eh?
Agreed.
But in addition to the previously mentioned "punch," I was hoping for more depth, especially given the "waiting period."
As the kids say, "props" still go to Chaput & Egan for awesome statements! With nods of honorable mention to all the other men who stepped up to the plate!
"a resolution of these differences in truth and charity and peace. "
I had to read that twice. The first time all I saw was "a resolution of these differences in truth" and I was afraid we had one of those "what's true for me is not necessarily what's true for you" kinds of things. Glad I just mis-read it.
Inviting someone to a "conversation",of course, avoids having to say anything now, and it allows the other side to dillydally as long as it wants, further putting off saying anything while the conversation is stalled. In the meantime, it blunts the criticism of "do-nothingism".
woah, here's some of that "punch" we're looking for:
"the Speaker's office issued a statement on her behalf. It contained this sentence: "While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe[sic] to that view." That statement suggests that morality can be decided by poll, by numbers. If ninety percent of Catholics subscribe to the view that human life begins at conception, does that makes Church teaching truer than if only seventy percent or fifty percent agree? "
I wrote something very similar to this myself when I sent an editorial to the Georgia Bulletin (Archdiocese of Atlanta newspaper) regarding an article they had published on a study done by CUA that showed how the Catholics they had studied wanted to enter into a "dialog" with the Bishops about certain teachings - in other words, the study was intimating that the Catholic Church should "focus group" some of their teachings. (shameless plug: read the full text on my blog.)
He's responding in a pastoral way to a member of his flock, which I think is why he's less outspoken than the other bishops have been.
He's giving her a graceful way to back down on what she's been saying. Now, if she continues to assert that (1) the teaching of the Church is a matter of personal opinion (2) she's right, the bishops are wrong (3) you're not the boss of me, then I don't see he has any choice but to drop the hammer.
If she can be brought to understand her errors and repent of them, that's another matter.
The statement itself is fine -- could have been better, could have been worse. The specifically pastoral dimension seems lacking. I wonder whether anything will come of it, and how long those who have been scandalized will be left wondering that.
As Diogenes pointed out last week, Archbishop Niederauer demurred in February 2007 that Pelosi's stance on abortion was something he hadn't "had a chance to talk to her about" yet.
Eighteen months later, it took a direct misrepresentation of Catholic tradition on global TV, a spokesman's flip-off to the USCCB and half the American bishops coming down on Pelosi to jump-start that long-delayed conversation, or at least to spark an invitation.
Hey. At least it happened.
I regret the necessity of addressing these issues in so public a forum, but the widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable.
This is disheartening. "these issues" can only refer to what preceded the final paragraph. So Bishop Wuerl's defense of the Church's teaching, the Catechism's teaching, Vatican II's teaching, Pelosi's public distortion of Catholic teaching, along with her public defense of that distortion with an appeal to the "sensus infidelium" are matters best dealt with in private? So much for lights before men and cities set on hills.
One can only hope that the line was poorly worded.
"It is my obligation to teach forthrightly..." - He's telling us that or trying to convince himself?
I found His Excellency's statement to be, well, pastoral. He knows he has a problematic Catholic on his hands, he wants to try to bring her back into the fold, and he knows that the rest of us want to know what he's going to do with her.
It is obvious he wants to save her soul more than he wants to cut her down with denunciations. Shouldn't we want the same thing? Then we should give him (and her) the benefit of the doubt. It is not inconceivable that she will conform herself to the authority of her bishop.
Niederaurer should abdicate to become an episcopal "bishop". Invitations to conversations are common there.
Breaking News! Abp of San Fran passes the buck!
Next up, dog bites man!
Deny her Communion.
While it is true that there is a pastoral side to this, it is most emphatically also a public issue - for the very obvious reason that the brain concussion was demonstrated in public. At the same time, the Bishop has a point in wanting to rein in a soul in need of enlightenment.
Which is why I am sorely disappointed that he left any kind of time table unmentioned. He should quite specifically have requested an as immediate meeting as practicalities would allow - and for both reasons mentioned above: To make sure the soul involved gets its chance - and so that the person involved may get a corrected message out to the general public ASAP!
i knew it! i was hoping i'd be wrong, but i didn't have much expectations from niederauer. he waited almost 2 weeks only to say that he wants to talk (or write) it out with pelosi? he's had plenty of chances to do that.
smells too much like appeasement on dissenters. may God strengthen archbishop niederauer.
Perhaps Papa Benny should give him a phonecall, to "discuss" the situation.
We waited a week for this! She punches him in the nose and he invites her to coffee? Maybe this is some kind of turning the other cheek?? It smells more like a spoiled brat that the parent refuses to say no to.
For those who think this statement is "pastoral", I have two comments:
1) Denying someone communion can often be the best "pastoral" move possible. It is a medicinal action, intended to sear the conscience of the person involved. Inviting them to coffee does not have that effect - it makes the person in grave error think she is just wrong about something as trivial as the weather forecast.
2) If you really think the Archbishop is doing anything other than simply trying to push this issue off his plate, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Weak as water, weak as water
while we're at it, what about joe biden's bishop???
He's probably a Democrat himself. Big yawn. Tom
while we're at it, what about joe biden's bishop???
I read a story recently (don't have the link handy) that Biden's bishop has stated that Biden is not allowed to speak at Catholic schools in the diocese, because of his pro-abortion stand, and that this policy would not change even if Biden is elected VP. So that's something at least.
As a Catholic San Franciscan, I have to say I'm not too surprised by all this. I've met Abp. Niederauer a couple of times, and he's a very nice man in person. Says please and thhank you, and generally very gracious. Buut, and I'm saying this as charitably as I can figure out how to say, a leader he is not. He can best b e described, from what I can observe, as an episcopal adminstrator. He's a guy who can fill out the forms, and keep the bureaucratic end of things going, but he's certainly not going to change anything or do anything bold. Perhaps that's a good thing, but I tend to think in a aplace like San Francisco, you'd want more the Lion of Judah than the lamb. But I don't run the church, so what do I know. Very nicde man, though.
Sorry for all typoes. No coffee yet this morning.
It should have been easy and quick to say a) This is what the truth is and b) I'm in private conversation with her about this matter. And leave it at that if he really wanted to keep it "pastoral".
As he's left it now, he took a good bureaucratic delay to respond with nothing, Least of which is any care for her soul.
He's "inviting" her just now? He should have called her on the phone. He could have already met with her by now.
If he's doing his job as pastor then he's not showing it here. And if he thinks the bishop is merely a teacher, then why did it take so long to correct the errors for the benefit of the rest of his flock?
I don't know - when delay like this happen in the business world, it's usually on documents written in committee, or those which have to be approved by legal councel. Is that the proceure in SF?
It's no "Profile in Courage." I'd ban her from Communion in a nanosecond. The Archbishop by his dithering has probably encouraged young, confused, and pregnant Catholic girls just to go ahead and have an abortion because the Church really doesn't treat this seriously. Tom
Very nice man, said Michael. She bops him in the snoot and he invites her for coffee, notes Kelly. Beyond wishywashy, said I. This is probably the last episcopal statement on the matter. Much like the old game of Start The Statement. Person A says something to Person B, who repeats it to Person C, and so on. The last person then spouts something utterly different from Person A's intention. Thus His Eminence's letter. Or perhaps more like the old t-shirt coming out of the washer after repeated cleanings with heavy bleach. The logo of Enormous State University comes out extremely faded.
Does anyone else find it odd that when referring to the U.S. bishops and USCCB statements, he always refers to "the bishops" and "their" documents? Thus, "In their 2006 document, . . . the bishops begin by reminding Catholics . . . ." and "Nevertheless, the bishops go on to say: 'If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject . . . .'" and "This teaching of the bishops does not violate the separation of church and state." I would expect "we" and "our" from someone who is a bishop himself.
Woe to the shepherds who only take care of themselves!Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.[the unborn]These are the Lord's people and yet they had to leave the land.You profane my holy name.You deprive the nation of its children.You will no longer devour men and make your nation childless.
In truth, I would not mind at all if more bishop's made the decision to withhold communion from pro-abort politicians, Pelosi especially.
That said, I am weary of all the arm chair bishoping that goes on in blogdom. Our bishops sometimes made really bad decisions and it is easy to criticize them then. Withholding communion is never an easy call and the burden for making that decision rightly belongs with someone who sits on a cathedra, not an arm chair.
Bishops have a tough job and need our prayers, respect and love. Because of the ministry of service they perform they particularly deserve the charity we owe to all. Criticizing them should be done with great and considered humility.
Very nice comment DGS and written very nicely too. But This is a clear cut picture. Black or white. Life or death. Our Church leaders MUST do what is right.
"But This is a clear cut picture. Black or white. Life or death."
Thank you for your kind comment, but I would gently disagree with you in this respect: certainly, abortion is life or death for the innocent victims, but it is not quite black and white with regard to politicians. There is no debate that voting for legislation to allow abortions or to fund them is objectively wrong, but the question of its sinfulness is nuanced and shaded with lots of greys. Recall that there is a subjective element required for culpability to accrue. (Understand, please, that I make no defense of Pelosi or the "I'm personally oppossed..." cowards who are copping out.)
Might a bishop allow communion in the hope that the grace of the sacrament might lead to a conversion of heart?
Conversation seems a wise place to start. If she fails to respond, shame on her and he does need to act then. If he lets the matter drop, then woe to him.
I fear that some of our bishops will face a harsh judgement for not taking a stronger line, but I do believe that most of them truly are men of conscience and I do not envy them their burdens.
Let us agree that you and I can disagree in peace and respect and commit ourselves to the work of praying for our bishops, voting against the pro-abort pols and making our civil law a clearer reflection of the moral and natural law. I will pray for Archbishop Niederauer by name, just as I do for my own.
Reading these comments reminds me of that famous Gospel story when the men of the village surround the woman caught in sin, ready to stone her to death. Jesus spoke to the crowd: "I am the Lord your God. Watch me take this rock and be the first to throw it at this wretched woman! Now she will never take communion...thus spake the Lord.
NOT! Your comments read better in the original German.
Your comments make no sense. Millions of babies are being murdered! Think. Nobody is advocating any harm to Ms.Pelosi, but you don't seem to care about the murder going on every minute! Boo hoo, poor Ms. Pelosi.
Ike, Mike's probably a Democrat and is looking for excuses for supporting a Party whose platform is Nazi-like. Tom
Commenting by HaloScan
