Archbishop Wuerl openly refuses to discipline notiorious Pro-Abort Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaypeeto3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
miguel said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s also possible to be personally deluded or a terrible sinner (who has reasoned his way into thinking that “it’s ok”) without being a formal heretic.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Let’s take a quick look back at English History and the time of Henry VIII. When push came to shove and Henry said, “sign the oath making me head of the church of England or die”. . .I believe that only Bishop (he was made cardinal just before his death) John Fisher refused to sign. The rest of the bishops of England, willy-nilly, signed the oath. And thus renounced the Catholic faith not just for them but for all the people in England. There were, and continued to be for many years into the reign of Elizabeth, as many or more Catholics in England, but they had no bishops to lead them, their services were gradually made illegal and then treasonous, etc., priests who came to serve them were martyred.

While there is no threat of death perhaps, it seems to me that there are enough bishops here (and elsewhere) whose consciences (perhaps not surprisingly like Henry’s, whose conscience ‘pricked him’ regarding his marriage to Katherine of Aragon) are ‘pricking’ them and who would defy the Pope were he to come flat out and demand that they exercise a ‘particular’ judgment even if that judgment is both historically held and doctrinally sound. And could you imagine these bishops appealing to the U.S. government to support them? Could you imagine them refusing to leave their sees if the Pope appoints another bishop? I can.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we’re dealing with heretic bishops here, just weak bishops desiring to avoid conflict. I can envision them passing the buck to Rome if the Pope were to mandate a clean-up.

I often imagine various scenarios of “church vs. state” to imagine what would happen, who would win, etc. For example, what would happen if the English monarch were to convert to Catholicism, but refuse to step down from the throne? (If someone wants to posit a theory, I think a separate thread is appropriate). I don’t think the intransigent bishops would win if they declared war on Rome. The government wouldn’t step in, as that would be a violation of the first amendment. If the Pope assigned a bishop to a different see, and then appointed a new bishop to the intransigent’s see, I think we could arrange for a change of locks on the cathedral doors. The people may not like the new bishop, but the faithful ones will stay, and then we can evangelize to those who left. One difference between the Church in the US, and the SSPX is that SSPX is a community of priests, loyal to a particular practice, and to a particular bishop. I don’t envisage that kind of unity among the priests at large, and the laity as a whole.
 
frommi said:
So long as he assigns him to something else, yes, thats a possibility
However…it’s not something that is going to be done over giving communion to a politician.
Click to expand...
So send them to a little monastery in the desert. The Rule of St. Benedict states that a priest has no additional authority over his brothers; seniority is determined solely by date of entry into the monastery, and the rule of the abbot. So give them a non-existent diocese and put’em in the cloister.
 
Other_Eric said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting and informative canon-legal perspective. Thank you. But would the bishop really need to convene a tribunal? Is he not the sole judge of the diocese?
 
frommi said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is the whole point of excommunication. It is intended to be a salutary sanction. If a person wants to be a part of the Church, excommunication will have the intended effect on them. If they decide that their life as it is is more important, then at least their excommunication can serve as an example to others.
 
chicago said:
It’s also possible to be personally deluded or a terrible sinner (who has reasoned his way into thinking that “it’s ok”) without being a formal heretic.
Click to expand...
Yes. I am using the term more in a religious error sense…not so much in a formal legal sense.
 
miguel said:
Yes. I am using the term more in a religious error sense…not so much in a formal legal sense.
Click to expand...
I’d seriously question the wisdom of throwing around such a serious term so lightly, especially if one is using it to justify calling for formal penalties such as withholding of communion. (Even if such a call might have other legitimate justifying reasons.)
 
chicago said:
I’d seriously question the wisdom of throwing around such a serious term so lightly, especially if one is using it to justify calling for formal penalties such as withholding of communion. (Even if such a call might have other legitimate justifying reasons.)
Click to expand...
That’s fine. BTW I don’t throw it around. Occasionally the word comes up in discussions with like-minded people. The term heresy does apply to religious error. And the term heretic applies to obstinate attachment to heresy.
newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
 
Joe_Kelley said:
See Abp. Wuerl & Abortion, follow-up

I guess he is passing off the teaching duties to the laity. :rolleyes: .
Click to expand...
Of everything I have read on this situation I find that one response he gave to be incredible and revealing. It is now the responsibility of the laity to teach and enforce canon law?

I do not deny we each can do more, but is it too strident to suggest to the Archbishop that he and his fellow bishops have done almost nothing to catechize and discipline in the last few…decades? I mean you have got to be kidding.
 
chicago said:
Rather, I believe that he is honestly acknowledging that he is but one man. The vast populance of Catholics and electorate can ultimately do far more than he to effect change.
Click to expand...
He is one man in a very important position. He is a Shepherd. He should be a leader.
 
chicago said:
And, by exhorting the faithful to do their part, he leads.
Click to expand...
OK, what about the other part?
Human Life International President Fr. Tom Euteneuer concurred. Fr. Euteneuer told LifeSiteNews.com, that rather than ‘pastoral style’, “In actual fact we are talking about the exercise of Episcopal oversight. I don’t believe Archbishop Wuerl is doing his job. The clear directives from the Vatican in addition to canon law indicate that a woman whose (pro-abortion) position is of a high profile nature is a public scandal to the faith. Not only should she be refused Communion by the legitimate authority of the diocese, but she should be excommunicated. Period.”
Click to expand...
 
Well, that’s Fr. Tom’s opinion. And I’m sure it plays very well to what his donors want to hear.
 
First, I don’t mean this to indicate any bishop. I respect and admire our bishops for the work they do, even when, in human frailness, they fall short of what some expect of them. This is merely satire, parody, etc. I think Joe Kelley asked for something like this. I took out a few verses from the original, because I couldn’t think of much more to do. I hope you all enjoy…but if not, don’t take this as an actual contribution to the discussion. Moderators, if this needs to be moved or deleted as not appropriate to this forum/thread, I’ll understand, even if I die a little inside.

Lib’ral Bishop Catholic
words by Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
Tune by Arthur Sullivan (sorry Art!)

I am the very model of a lib’ral bishop catholic,
My views and statements may make other people rather sick.
I’ve read the Pope’s encyclicals, and missives from the CDF
But sometimes it would seem that I begin to go a little deaf.

Abortion makes me sad but I am not prepared to discipline
I really don’t like conflict because nobody can ever win.
Welcome to Communion Jack, how’s the Ripping gone today?
I know you’re not repentant but I like to just think “What the hay?”

He knows you’re not repentant but he likes to just think “What the hay?”
He knows you’re not repentant but he likes to just think “What the hay?”
He knows you’re not repentant but he likes to just think “What the what the hay?”

I’m very good at double talk and female priests are great with me.
I don’t see the big problem with this homosexuality.
In short, although my view may make you people rather sick
I am the very model of a lib’ral bishop catholic.

In short, although his views may make we people rather sick
He is the very model of a lib’ral bishop catholic.

In fact, when I deny the historicity of the Gospel
When I question Purgatory and say that there is not a Hell
When Transubstantiation is a silly doctrine of the past
And my dogma is dependent on a zeitgeist that just doesn’t last

When I ordain Kissling have her teach theology
When I shrug off Canon Law and just ignore the Papacy
In short, when I embrace and teach all forms of heresy
You’ll say a better lib’ral Cath’lic bishop never had a see.

*You’ll say a better lib’ral Cath’lic bishop never had a see.
You’ll say a better lib’ral Cath’lic bishop never had a see.
You’ll say a better lib’ral Cath’lic bishop never had a had a see. *

A time before Vatican II just isn’t in my memory.
This “Unchanging Tradition” stuff doesn’t make much sense to me.
But still, although my views may make you people rather sick
I am the very model of a lib’ral bishop Catholic!

But still, although his views may make we people rather sick
He is the very model of a lib’ral bishop Catholic!
 
chicago said:
Well, that’s Fr. Tom’s opinion. And I’m sure it plays very well to what his donors want to hear.
Click to expand...
I see. So, he is only concerned about donors?

I guess our spiritual fathers would rather have their sons and daugthers do all the work. What type of family is that?
 
fix said:
I see. So, he is only concerned about donors?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that he was “only concerned about donors”. In fact, I suppose he does believe what he says. But do think about what his donors would do were he to support Archbishop Wuerl’s position. It wouldn’t exactly serve the organization he heads very well, while this statement does. Those are the sad realities of running such an apostolate and even Church politics, in general.
I guess our spiritual fathers would rather have their sons and daugthers do all the work. What type of family is that?
Click to expand...
Perhaps a well functioning family in which everyone does their proper part, rather than merely blames someone else. The bishop’s role is to extol and govern, the laity’s role is to act in the world. It serves not the Church very well when we limit ourselves to finger pointing at the other. I think the bishops have spoken pretty clearly on our responsibilities here. When will the laity act and vote the bad wood out to be replaced with something better?
 
chicago said:
I didn’t say that he was “only concerned about donors”. In fact, I suppose he does believe what he says. But do think about what his donors would do were he to support Archbishop Wuerl’s position. It wouldn’t exactly serve the organization he heads very well, while this statement does. Those are the sad realities of running such an apostolate and even Church politics, in general.
Click to expand...
I think the same reasoning is used to defend the archbishop’s words in this matter.
Perhaps a well functioning family in which everyone does their proper part, rather than merely blames someone else. The bishop’s role is to extol and govern, the laity’s role is to act in the world. It serves not the Church very well when we limit ourselves to finger pointing at the other. I think the bishops have spoken pretty clearly on our responsibilities here. When will the laity act and vote the bad wood out to be replaced with something better?
Click to expand...
When will the bishops actions match what they seem to say? If it is mostly on the laity by means of voting them out and no public rebuke is used to counter manifest grave public sin then I can see why the public is confused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top