Archbishop Wuerl openly refuses to discipline notiorious Pro-Abort Catholics

[Jeffrey]

This is a reason why I do not trust some of the “leadership”. If they don’t follow the rules… how do they expect the flock to?

When they say the road to hell is paved with Bishops’ heads ( or was it Cardinals? ) they weren’t lying.

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07011604.html

So what else is new?
Such behavior is, sadly, par-for-the-course among
today’s crop of Useless Eaters in episcopal robes.

 

[chicago]

Speaking of Bishop Bruskewitz, I had a dream last night…

Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum : Habemus papam ! Emminentissimum ac reverendissimum dominum, dominum Fabianum, sanctæ romanæ Ecclesiæ episcopum Bruskewitz, qui sibi nomen imposuit Pii XIII.

Yep, you were dreaming, alright!

 

[Jared123]

I don’t want to seem to negative about the rest of the U.S. Bishops. There are some other really good ones and have it much more difficult than Bishop Bruskewitz. Bruskewitz inherited a strong orthodox diocese from Bishop Flavin. I have heard good things about the Archbishop of St. Louis, Bishop of Colorado Springs and I’m sure others.

 

[francesco920]

I don’t want to seem to negative about the rest of the U.S. Bishops. There are some other really good ones and have it much more difficult than Bishop Bruskewitz. Bruskewitz inherited a strong orthodox diocese from Bishop Flavin. I have heard good things about the Archbishop of St. Louis, Bishop of Colorado Springs and I’m sure others.

I agree. I think we are too hard on our bishops sometimes.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I don’t want to seem to negative about the rest of the U.S. Bishops. There are some other really good ones and have it much more difficult than Bishop Bruskewitz. Bruskewitz inherited a strong orthodox diocese from Bishop Flavin. I have heard good things about the Archbishop of St. Louis, Bishop of Colorado Springs and I’m sure others.

<cough>Chaput, arch of Denver<cough>

 

[Jared123]

<cough>Chaput, arch of Denver<cough>

Yes, I have heard about Chaput (who grew up in a small town in Kansas such as myself). I’m not sure about the Archdiocese of Denver, my brother inlaw was a youth leader for the Archdiocese for a short time and then left. We also have a priest in the Lincoln Diocese who grew up in Denver. After his ordination by Bishop Bruskewitz he had the option of going back to Denver after serving in Lincoln for a few years. He personally told me there was know way he was ever going back to Denver. To much unorthodox Catholicism to deal with, where as here in Lincoln this isn’t an issue. The problem many of these Archbishops and Bishops are faced with is that they have a generation of Catholics who have been watered down after Vatican II. So take Archbishop Chaput for example. He is a great orthodox Catholic who is surrounded by many unorthodox priest and layiety. I’m sure there are also some very orthodox priest and layiety, but there is enough unorthodox ones to cause major problems. It will take another generation to clean this up, and I’m not sure once a Bishop lets a diocese slip that it can ever be fully recovered.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Since in actuality it is bishops who make the recommendations of who is to be bishop to the pope–it is only after a few generations of them before you see real change.

In other words liberal bishops could hypotheticaly recommend liberal priests to be the next bishops so even if 90% of the priests in the diocese are conservative they could still recommend the liberal ones

Today there might be liberal priests quite good at playing the game of letting their liberal bishops know they’re liberal without letting the rest of the world know it.

In fact there could be priests who don’t think it is right to deny communion to anyone for any reason who would let their liberal bishops know that was their stance, too. They could do that in private.

Who do you think those bishops would recommend to be the next bishops.

Now the Pope can choose anyone he wishes but it is easy to see with all he has to do that knowing exactly what priests in the enitre world are bonafide conservatives would be hard to ascertain.

If any Pope truely wants to change things he must change the seminaries! They produce the men who become priests and bishops and popes.

If they are liberal what do you think they’ll produce?

 

[Listener]

I think that the good bishop has made the correct decision. If he has decided to provide personal counsel to a politician or anyone else, it is simply no one else’s business. If he has decided not to do this, it is no one else’s business, either.

The bishops are shepherds, not policemen. If the bishop decided to refuse Communion to someone, how on earth would he ever enforce it? Supposed he refused Communion to a politician, and unknown to him, the politician had just gone to confession the night before?

Let’s say that the bishop had said that Communion should be denied to a certain politician. Let us also say that you happen to be a Eucharistic Minister at a Mass that this politician is attending. Let’s say that you wouldn’t know this politician if you saw him or her walking down the street.

I think you would have enough to do as a Eucharistic Minister, concentrating on distributing the Body and Blood of Christ reverently, and making sure that you didn’t run out of hosts. How could you possibly take on the responsibility of refusing Communion to a politician that you didn’t even recognize?

I am sure that many priests would have the same problem. I think that bishops are very wise when they refuse to deny Communion to people. After all, they are shepherds, not policemen.

 

[frommi]

The Pope can excommunicate bishops and suspend them from their duties.

Here’s an example:

Situs Judi Online, Poker Online, DominoQQ, BandarQQ Online

The pope didn’t have to excommunicate abp milingo…he did it to himself the second he ordained bishops without the consent of Rome. That’s canon law…

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The “good” archbishop IS in fact a sort of policeman.
A shepherd’s job is to protect the sheep from wolves,
feed them, and KEEP THEM IN LINE.

It is amazing and appalling to me that otherwise good Catholics can so easily defend the indefensible, namely, defending Bishops doing NOTHING about defiant public heretics. The poster is wrong in saying it is nobody’s business, too. It IS our business as Christians when our name and above all the name of Christ is sullied by public heretics claiming to be Catholic yet openly supporting abortion, sodomy, what have you. It IS our business when our shepherds do NOTHING to keep the house of the Lord clean.

Now of course, we can’t expect Eucharistic Ministers to recognize individuals who may be unfit to receive the Eucharist. But the Bishop in question knows who these people are, and he has administered communion to them himself, and that is an abomination. Moreover, the bishop DOES have the authority and the duty to do something about public heretics, namely, excommunicate them. Anything less than that, especially in the deplorable situation in today’s church, is dereliction of duty plain and simple. It is malfeasance in High Office.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[Other_Eric]

The “good” archbishop IS in fact a sort of policeman.
A shepherd’s job is to protect the sheep from wolves,
feed them, and KEEP THEM IN LINE.

It is amazing and appalling to me that otherwise good Catholics can so easily defend the indefensible, namely, defending Bishops doing NOTHING about defiant public heretics. The poster is wrong in saying it is nobody’s business, too. It IS our business as Christians when our name and above all the name of Christ is sullied by public heretics claiming to be Catholic yet openly supporting abortion, sodomy, what have you. It IS our business when our shepherds do NOTHING to keep the house of the Lord clean.

Now of course, we can’t expect Eucharistic Ministers to recognize individuals who may be unfit to receive the Eucharist. But the Bishop in question knows who these people are, and he has administered communion to them himself, and that is an abomination. Moreover, the bishop DOES have the authority and the duty to do something about public heretics, namely, excommunicate them. Anything less than that, especially in the deplorable situation in today’s church, is dereliction of duty plain and simple. It is malfeasance in High Office.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

As neither Pelosi, Kennedy nor any other member of Congress is a resident of Washington D.C., Archbishop Wuerl may not exceed his jurisdictional authority and excommunicate members of the Church who are subjects of another bishop. Given the sporadic presence of such individuals in Washington D.C., I doubt whether they would even stay the necessary three-month interval to establish a quasi-domicile. It is therefore likely not malfeasance that prevents the archbishop from convening an annulment tribunal but rather respect for the norms of canon law.

As for the administration of the Blessed Sacrament, that is an issue more properly addressed by the archbishop himself in front of his own excommunication tribunal, not by the rest of us. While it may be tempting to take the governance of Christ’s Church into our own hands, we must nevertheless remember our state as the lay community and work within the channels that are left to us.

 

[Jared123]

When John Kerry was running for president in 2004 I can remember Bishops and Archbishops making public statements that if Kerry came into his Diocese he would be denied communion. I specifically remember the Archbishop of St. Louis saying this, and I pretty sure my Bishop, Bishop Bruskewitz would not allow him to receive communion in the Linclon Diocese.
That is correct the Bishop cannot excommunicate a person unless that person is part of his diocese, but he can instruct his priest to not allow that person to receive communion. This is one of the problems within the Catholic in the U.S. people don’t think a Bishop has any power. The reason for this is because most Bishops are afraid to use there power, thus the people think they have none.
When we are talking about politicians such as Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy who stand up in front of the world and say hey we are for killing babies, and their public voting record proves this, they are unworthy to receive communion. Until they make a public statement saying, hey I am against abortion and then go to confession, they should not be receiving communion. This all goes back to weak Bishops/priest not doing their job.

 

[frommi]

When John Kerry was running for president in 2004 I can remember Bishops and Archbishops making public statements that if Kerry came into his Diocese he would be denied communion. I specifically remember the Archbishop of St. Louis saying this, and I pretty sure my Bishop, Bishop Bruskewitz would not allow him to receive communion in the Linclon Diocese.
That is correct the Bishop cannot excommunicate a person unless that person is part of his diocese, but he can instruct his priest to not allow that person to receive communion. This is one of the problems within the Catholic in the U.S. people don’t think a Bishop has any power. The reason for this is because most Bishops are afraid to use there power, thus the people think they have none.
When we are talking about politicians such as Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy who stand up in front of the world and say hey we are for killing babies, and their public voting record proves this, they are unworthy to receive communion. Until they make a public statement saying, hey I am against abortion and then go to confession, they should not be receiving communion. This all goes back to weak Bishops/priest not doing their job.

I’m not sure it’s a matter of ‘weakness’. Again…no one here knows if individual bishops didn’t instruct a priest to do this or that.

What I find interesting about the statements that Bruskewitz made is that there was about a one percent chance John Kerry would have ever stepped foot in Lincoln, Nebraska during his campaign (due to poll calculations)…so why did he bother to make that statement other than to just be divisive?

I give credit to Bishops like Robert Carlson who reports seem to indicate had a convesartion with Tom Daschle when he was minority leader in the senate regarding partial birth abortion. The difference is that he never made a proclamation about the man’s fitness for Eucharist to an entire church. That was the way these matters should be handled.

We continue to act like taking Jesus further away from people will somehow lead to conversion, and that thinking pervades everything from our judgment of liturgy to our judgment of each other.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

so why did he bother to make that statement other than to just be divisive?

One possible explanation would be that he was ‘standing up’ for what to many is an ‘unwelcome’ truth. How often do we ourselves know the truth but hesitate to speak out lest we be seen as sanctimonous, self-righteous, unfeeling, unChristian, etc? And we are not really in positions of authority.

A bishop–any bishop–is in a position of authority and as such is entitled to speak out for the truth even when people ‘do not want to hear’.

Of course, they can and do err, as do we all, and sometimes there are very well intentioned bishops who are not so secure in the faith and who think that they can ‘catch more flies with honey than vinegar’. . .who ‘water down’ or ‘special circumstance’ or ‘indult’ just about any ‘irregularity’ because they think they’re being charitable. And that shows just where Satan is most successful in attacking a leader. Certainly charity and love is a virtue. But making that ‘charity and love’ so important that one compromises, waters down, or flat out rejects a truth in order to be ‘charitable and loving’ in essence elevates the **erroneous perception **of ‘charity and love’ thus inflated to gargantuan distortion above truth, even above God.

How often have you heard people state, “If God demands this or that” (whether it’s obedience, humility, right to life, continence, etc.) “then He is a mean God” (because he’s denying me the ‘right’ to do what I want, to be proud, to contracept or have an abortion, to divorce and remarry etc.) “and I won’t have any part of that.” “Therefore, because I believe God isn’t mean, then I will go right ahead and do what I want because God isn’t mean and wants me to be happy and choose for myself and not be subject to petty rules by men who are themselves evil or sinners at best and just want to subjugate me”.

Sometimes we do need to hear (even if we can’t yet accept) the truth. God, and eternity, and truth, don’t adjust themselves to us, much as we might prefer it.

Sometimes, we need to adjust ourselves to God. . . and even ‘worse’, we need to adjust ourselves to legitimate authority, difficult as that is in this very me-oriented, ‘democratic’, egalitarian society. Most of us will say that “God is supreme” but fewer and fewer of us want to 'bend our wills" to a bishop who speaks the eternal and unchanging truth instead of the more flexible, contemporary, 21st century we’re-so-special warm-and-fuzzy ‘truthiness range for those who want it’.

 

[frommi]

One possible explanation would be that he was ‘standing up’ for what to many is an ‘unwelcome’ truth. How often do we ourselves know the truth but hesitate to speak out lest we be seen as sanctimonous, self-righteous, unfeeling, unChristian, etc? And we are not really in positions of authority.

A bishop–any bishop–is in a position of authority and as such is entitled to speak out for the truth even when people ‘do not want to hear’.

I really don’t disagree here…Bishops should say things from time to time that ‘we don’t want to hear’, in an effort to be counter cultural.

However…my point was that in this case he singled out ONE politician who was neither a member of his diocese nor did he intend to spend time in his diocese.

When he did that, he made it look like he was using the Eucharist as a poltical endorsement tool. Not a source of unity and communion.

 

[Jared123]

I have been meaning to post this article but had to find it on the net. To read what Bishop Bruskewtiz did shortly after being installed Bishop please read:

www.excommunication.net/canonical_action/Bruskewitz_excomm.htm

 

[Jared123]

I have been meaning to post this article but had to find it on the net. To read what Bishop Bruskewtiz did shortly after being installed Bishop please read:

www.excommunication.net/canonical_action/Bruskewitz_excomm.htm

Nebraska call to action appealed this all the way to the Vatican and just recently did the Vatican rule on the matter. Of coures they upheld Bishop Bruskewtiz’s actions. Here is the article to prove this, please read:

www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2005/03/05/news/regional/80dbf4c98078408c86256fbb001dbdf6.txt

 

[Riley259]

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07011604.html

So what else is new?
Such behavior is, sadly, par-for-the-course among
today’s crop of Useless Eaters in episcopal robes.

This is disappointing. It puzzles me because I’ve heard him speak on a number of issues (a syndicated show he has that airs on my local catholic station) and he’s very good. He also has a book out that seems to be very orthodox. Let’s pray that our bishops will have more courage.

 

[miguel]

What that makes them is terribly confused, morally blind, fearfully bought, or just flat out sinners. But they’re Catholics, nonetheless, not heretics.

Indeed they are Catholics by virtue of their baptism…and always will be. But when some of them try to argue their pro-choice position is consistent with their Catholic faith (as Kerry did during the presidential debate with Bush)…that’s also heresy. It’s possible to be both a heretic and a baptized Catholic.

 

[miguel]

…The bishops are shepherds, not policemen. If the bishop decided to refuse Communion to someone, how on earth would he ever enforce it?

Obviously, a bishop can’t stop a person determined to sneak into the Communion line. Absolute enforcement really isn’t the point. The point is to send the message that obstinate public persistence in grave sin is not acceptable, either for the person or his brothers and sisters who may be scandalized. The point is to get the individual to repent and let the rest of the faithful know he means business that child murder is not compatible with the Catholic faith.