AmericanPapist Comments
He's a Prince of the Church! It's not like he's the old grandpa in the corner that no one is supposed to pay attention to. It's difficult to spite him for commenting. As a former archbishop of Washington, DC he as well as Archbishop Wuerl get asked about denying pro-abortion politicians communion all the time.
He's suggesting that people in objective manifest grave sin be given the Eucharist, which is a sacrilege. It's widely reported that he hid the contents of Ratzinger's famous 2004 letter on this topic from the US Bishops when they met to discuss this issue. I'm not dissapointed that he's talking to the press, I'm dissapointed that he continues to spread confusion regarding how Catholics are to honor and respect the King of the Church.
Remember when retirement meant . . . retirement?
WAC
He's only retired from the See of the Archdiocese of Washington. He's still a titular archbishop and a Prince of the Church. He's one among less than 120 that gets to vote for the next pope. He serves as a very important voice for the Holy See in diplomatic matters. Is it not perhaps more scandalous to criticize a Prince of the Church on such an open forum for holding the same policy that the current Archbishop of Washington holds. You don't think that if the Holy See had wanted the matter pressed they would have appointed someone with a different opinion to the archdiocese? You don't think it came up? Is his decision correct? That's probably above my pay grade, but it would certainly be sinful for me to make accusations based on hearsay on a blog. Appeal to the Lord in prayer, write a letter to the Pope, write His Eminence with your concerns!
That's all very nice, but completely ignores the issues I raised.
I think McCarrick has some "secrets" which explains his laissez-faire attitude towards the Eucharist. It's good he is no longer is charge of a diocese. Tom
The bishop is called not only to teach, but to sanctify and govern. When students in a class obstinately refuse to accept the lesson being presented, there comes a point where the teacher must, for the good of the whole class, move on and let those students suffer the consequences of their willful ignorance. Otherwise, the direction of the class is controlled by the obtuse and recalcitrant students rather than the teacher, and those who want to learn are the ones who suffer. Then the teacher can neither teach nor govern. Some people, in the exercise of free will, choose to reject what they are taught. The teacher who fails to recognize or acknowledge this demonstrates a perverse form of pride or conceit by assuming that the fault must be his, and that he can bring about the desired outcome if only he teaches more and better.
How in the world is giving Communion to someone in manifest grave sin a good thing?
"It's public knowledge that Bob's in a state of grave sin, but we're going to profane the Body of Christ and give him the Eucharist. So what if it endangers his immortal soul, we want to look inclusive and non-judgemental."
Things like this undermine the belief in the Real Presence, degrade the authority of the Church, and remove any reason to care about having sinned.
John V, I'm sorry but you are way off on this one. One can't be an accomplice to activities that objectively harm another person's spiritual or physical state. It would be like giving someone heroin because that person *really* wanted heroin and you couldn't convince him it was bad. Furthermore, people do not have a "right" to the Eucharist. Priests are called Guardians of the Sacraments for a reason, here. They're not automated dispensers. McCarrick would best teach, govern and sanctify by passing on the faith of the Church, not his personal brand of apologetics.
I must have mis-stated my point, and very badly. I was trying to say that I disagree with Cardinal McCarrick's approach. Cardinal McCarrick seems to think that the only thing that needs to be done, or can be done, is to preach more, discuss more, until the dissidents come around. Pro-abortion Catholic political leaders understand Church teaching, they just refuse to follow it, of their own free will. Having made that decision, they should accept the consequences and the bishops should impose the consequences. Otherwise, the bishops' authority in teaching and in governing has been compromised.
My analogy to the classroom was meant to go something like this: A professor can't let an argument with a deliberately obtuse student go on and on or else he ends up losing control of the class. The rest of the class doesn't learn, and probably loses respect for the professor in the process. And the stubborn student, happy to hold his ground, doesn't learn either. So the professor has failed to teach or govern the classroom.
Did I do it better that time?
John V, yes I can agree with what you said to clarify. Indeed, I would add that refusing communion in this case is also a "teaching moment." All of the Church's penalties, it should be remembered, are medicinal: they are meant to help the person being sentenced. Refusing communion makes it clear that the Church, as the guardian of Revalation, cannot condone that person's activities. The Church always wishes that sinners repent and be re-admitted to the Sacraments. Thanks for the clarification - sometimes it helps to be overly clear in one's formulations, especially in comment boxes where complex approaches can so easily be taken the wrong way.
Best,
Thomas
Commenting by HaloScan
