AmericanPapist Comments
How about everyone is wrong? :-)
The USCCB doc implementing this norm states that the minister of communion should not be denying communion before a pastoral consultation. Archbishop Burke also has a pastoral consultation provision. I believe then Cardinal Ratzinger's letter also states a pastoral consultation should be done. Who is the proper person to do the pastoral consultation? Presumably the pastor, which the USCCB doc makes explicit.
Archbishop Wuerl is stating that he isn't going to replicate the work of the ordinary where these folks come from. He isn't going to place himself in judgement of the various bishops' findings. Can't half blame him there, because a) in no way is he the highest ranking prelate in the nation, b) in at least few cases his bishopric ranks below the bishop whose decision he would be countermandering, and c) his services are of a temporary nature to the politicians - in short as long as they are politicians in Congress - whereas the home dioceses are likely to minister to these politicians for life.
Sounds like a cop-out to me! After all, these politicians spend most of their time in DC rather in their home states!
Others can bother to confirm it if they would like. Your typical Congressman arrives in Washington on Monday evening or Tuesday morning and returns to their home district on Thursday or Friday. Additionally, Congress is only in session about 30 weeks of the year.
We tell people who have divorced and remarried that they should not receive communion because they might be committing a sin. Then again, they might not. The annulment process makes that determination.
In the absence of clear knowledge, we err on the side of protecting the remarried person from committing further sin by telling them not to receive communion. This also protects the Eucharist from possible desecration. Everyone understands this. (Except Rudy G, apparently).
In the case of pro-abortion politicians, there is no doubt that their actions constitute ongoing sin. Yet most bishops seem unwilling to follow the same practice they do with remarried persons.
I don't see bishops denying communion to remarried people either, so it seems like they're exactly following the same practices.
No, they don't. My point is that no one pretends this is an ambiguous situation like they do with pro-abortion politicians.
I find it hard to believe how casually Americans criticize bishops. But I'm probably guilty too. We can do better.
I find it hard to believe how casually Americans criticize Americans who criticize bishops. But I'm probably guilty too. We can do better.
Anybody catch Al Kresta this afternoon? I went over this with him on his program.
Archbishop Wuerl needs to stand up for what is right this is a cowardly cop out on his part.
Probably I've asked this line of questions before, and if so I apologize.
What is the precise conduct of a Sen. Kerry or Spkr. Pelosi that necessitates barring them from the Eucharist?
Is it because they are "pro-choice" in general?
Or must one point to some specific vote or action that they have taken that advances (or fails to impede?) the availability of abortion?
What if a politician believes, in good faith, that a law banning abortion would be unconstitutional because of a clear holding by the U.S. Supreme Court? Must he or she vote in favor of the unconstitutional law at the risk of excommunication?
Suppose a federal judge, for example, holds a state abortion statute unconstitutional . . . not because he believes abortion should be permitted but because it is his job to apply the law as definitively announced by the U.S. Supreme Court . . . should that judge be denied the Eucharist?
You know, its really difficult not to see this issue as a great opportunity. Just maybe we will actually have results when we call into question the status of the whole USCCB. Don't get me wrong, there are cowardly bishops out there, who without the USCCB would still hold idiotic positions on things like this. Nonetheless, you can't help but think it would be easier all around if bishops were either yay or nay for this...rather than simply having a document that stresses the importance of being yay or nay.
Maybe this whole Episcopal conference thing is just an exercise to further unity with the Orthodox.....see, we in the Catholic Church understand the problem of collegiality without a real head - as we have experienced the fruits of it for the past 40 years.
Don't get me wrong...I think consultations and discussions are fine, but its issues like this that make one wish that metropolitans and primatial sees still had some authority - if for no other reason than because then there would really be someone to call out on the carpet.
Can. 102 §1 Domicile is acquired by residence in the territory of a parish, or at least of a diocese, which is either linked to the intention of remaining there permanently if nothing should occasion its withdrawal, or in fact protracted for a full five years.
§2 Quasidomicile is acquired by residence in the territory of a parish, or at least of a diocese, which is either linked to the intention of remaining there for three months if nothing should occasion its withdrawal, or in fact protracted for three months.
§3 Domicile or quasidomicile in the territory of a parish is called parochial; in the territory of a diocese, even if not in a parish, it is called diocesan.
Since politicians are elected for at least two years, they have quasidomicile in a diocese.
Can. 107 §1 Both through domicile and through quasidomicile everyone acquires his or her own parish priest and Ordinary.
§2 The proper parish priest or Ordinary of a vagus is the parish priest or Ordinary of the place where the vagus is actually residing.
§3 The proper parish priest of one who has only a diocesan domicile or quasidomicile is the parish priest of the place where that person is actually residing.
Judging from Can. 102 and 107, a person who lives permanently in Town X in Diocese ABC and lives temporarily in Town Y in Diocese PQR is subject to the bishops of both dioceses. Thus, for example, a politician from Boston who lives in D.C. is subject to Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Wuerl.
But if His Excellency understands this better, please let him actually cite Canon Law as proof.
Archbishop Burke wrote that the domicile (or quasi-domicile) of the communicant is irrelevant. A bishop is responsible for the administration of the sacraments and the prevention of preventable scandal in HIS diocese. Note that Abp. Burke announced in 2004 that if John Kerry attempted to receive Communion in St. Louis ON A CAMPAIGN SWING, the sacrament would be refused. The domicile of John Kerry was immaterial in 2004, and it is utterly immaterial now. Foreseeable, preventable scandal is the only issue--and imposes on EVERY bishop the same grave obligation.
Abp. Burke, in other words, gave the clearest possible answer, four years ago, to Abp. Wuerl's most recent sleazy boob-bait.
Note that Wuerl is careful to make statements that can't TECHNICALLY be refuted, either by facts or law: Note his assertion that the decision to refuse Communion can "best" be made by the home bishop. He smoothly avoids making any claim about the actual law. An irrefutable statement precisely because it is meaningless. AND it flatters the "home bishops," who "presumably" have their own processes going on, which Wuerl is just too humble to interfere with.
Slick.
Wuerl's false assertions on this matter (and those of other bishops and of several canon lawyers) have already been exhaustively and conclusively exploded by Abp. Burke:
It is when imposing a PENALTY that jurisdiction is critical, and a bishop must use prudence and discretion, and mercy.
The refusal of Communion pursuant to Canon 915 is NOT a penalty, and thus mercy is irrelevant. The canon requires advance notification to the person involved in manifest sin, but this process does not take from 1973 to 2008, and counting, as Wuerl represents it. We are not dealing with the Marconi annulment here, folks. We are talking about whether Ted Kennedy is pro-abortion. Whether Nancy Pelosi, Eleanor Smeal, John Kerry, Chris Matthews, et al. ad nauseum, are pro-abortion.
A letter from the bishop: "Will you cease alleging in public that there is a 'right to abortion' and publicly retract your previous public statements in support of 'legal' abortion--i.e., the absence of legal sanctions against abortion?"
Letter from Senator Herod: "No."
That's it. There's no need for this dialogue to be in its second century! There's no role for "mercy" or "pastoral style" because the refusal of Communion in these cases is a grave obligation of every bishop. The giving of Communion in these cases is gravely evil--and when it comes to the commission of gravely evil acts, the virtue of prudence is not involved because the the prohibition is absolute. Winking at the gravely evil abuse of a sacrament is not part of any legitimate "pastoral style." Wuerl's statements are as inapposite and absurd as if he were to announce deferentially that OTHER bishops can "best" decide whether abortion is or is not evil.
The impunity with which bishops are ABLE to defy Canon Law, the
"Sorry, I don't save souls across state boundaries"
The impunity with which bishops are ABLE to defy Canon Law, the Pope, and the moral law is one of their perks. Abp. Wuerl is simply flaunting that fact.
The ISSUES are settled. What we are witnessing at this point is WILL: "Non serviam."
We are witnessing precisely the kind of absurdity, misdirection, non sequiturs, and bland complacency in the face of evil by which deep corruption in the Church's pastors always announces itself.
Umm, would it be completely innovative to have 3 retired bishops of D.C.?
What it also boils down to is a matter of respect. Respect for the Sacred. Those who chose to receive knowing *full well* that it was improper have (once again) demonstrated their lack of respect and thumbed their proverbial nose at what they know is right.
As an aside, it would be quite easy for me to "slip into the line" at a large Mass, and nobody would know that I was not a Catholic (at least at this point...), but I would. And so would Our Lord.
Fr. Joe, you are correct in that a bishop has jurisdiction of the sacraments in his diocese, irrelevant of the communicant's domicile.
But, if I am understanding the purpose of domicle/quasidomicile correctly, which I might not be, then Bishop Wuerl does have jurisdiction over politicians temporarily living in his diocese, despite his claims to the contrary.
Cody, Fr. Joe, Am not a canonist but I wholeheartedly agree that what the Canons you quote say in black and white mean what they say: in other words, Wuerl also has jurisdiction contrary to what he's trying to claim.
AND, perhaps, the moral underpinnings of this Canon are found in the comments which Tom presents to start this thread:
"It is my ... understanding that a Bishop is responsible not only for the spiritual welfare of his diocese, but also is responsible for the proper administration of the sacraments (and especially the Eucharist)."
At an elementary level it makes so much sense!
I hope the current moment provided by the Pope's visit helps to settle the Scandal of non-enforcement of Canon 915!
PS- don't forget that there are other Bishop's involved as far as those pro-abort Politicians we know of who received Holy Communion at the Papal Mass: for instance, I think Kennedy's residence is actually in the Diocese of Arlington.
I believe that when it comes to the imposition of penalties, or such matters as annulments, domicile is relevant, because those matters involve inquiries, trials, testimony, trials, canonical suits, etc.
Since Canon 915 is not a penal canon, and the refusal of Communion is not a penalty, and because no "legal processes" are involved, just a completely open process of obeying the canon, the domicile of the offenders is strictly irrelevant.
This is simply a completely transparent case in which Archbishop Burke has laid out the legal and moral case for his actions, and is obeying the Church's law, and Archbishop Wuerl has given imprecise, inapposite, and false rationales for his inaction, and is refusing to obey the Church's law. As I said, the issues involved are settled. What we have now is a conflict of WILL--a conflict between the law of the Church and the will of Abp. Wuerl. So far, Wuerl has been defying common sense, Canon Law, and the moral law with impunity.
There is nothing at this point that the laity or lower clergy can do except continue to speak the truth about the scandal Abp. Wuerl is giving to the whole Church. (Not to forget that every other bishop in the country is doing the same thing, except one dozen Ordinaries and two retired bishops.)
I don't know. One of the phrases I use as a mom of eight is, "I can't make you". That way, the kids can't yell "You can't make me!" to me. I tell them what they shouldn't do, and then point out that yes, they can probably sneak around and find someone else to help them misbehave, but there are really good reasons why I forbid something. The bishops might want to use that approach.
Say, "It isn't good for your soul to receive the Eucharist while you are in a state of mortal sin, whether you're living together before marriage, using your position of power to actively support abortion, using contraceptives, living an active homosexual lifestyle, or even if you haven't been to Confession in over a year. I can't stop you, but you're damaging your soul further if you receive Communion in this state." This is the approach that Bp. Loverde used when the topic came up in 2004; he preached a sermon about it during one of his monthly Respect Life Masses.
Democrats like disobedience too much, for the other approach to work.
Commenting by HaloScan
