Ratzinger & the bishops

[Joanna]

jimmy:

I think this is terrible. If the bishops are not listening to the vatican, then they should not be bishops. If they are given letters showing how they must handel an issue and they ignore it, they should not be bishops.

Some bishops (and archbishop) got it right.

Most Reverend John F. Donnoghue, Most Reverend Robert J. Baker and Most Reverend Peter J. Jugis are stand up bishops. They issued a statement from which I quote:

**"Because of the influence that Catholics in public life have on the conduct of our daily lives and on the formation of our nation’s future, we declare that Catholics serving in public life espousing positions contrary to the teaching of the Church on the sanctity and inviolability of human life, especially those running for or elected to public office are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in any Catholic church within our jurisdictions: the Archdiocese of Atlanta, the Dioceses of Charleston and Charlotte. Only after reconciliation with the Church has occurred, with the knowledge and consent of the local bishop, and public disavowal of former support for procured abortion, will the individual be permitted to approach the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. **
We undertake this action to safeguard the sacred dignity of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, to reassure the faithful, and to save sinners. "

---

 

[HagiaSophia]

An interesting comment by Archbishop Burke:

Question:* Dear Archbishop Burke, regarding Cardinal Ratzinger’s June 2004 memorandum, were the contents of the memo made known to you and the other bishops at the Denver meeting?
Archbishop Burke:* “It certainly was not made known to me and I do not believe it was given to the other bishops.*

catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=1210&section=Featured+TodayCardinal McCarrick referred to the memorandum.* We were told that, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, the application of the Canon 915 was up to the prudent judgment of each bishop.* The text of the memorandum would have been very helpful at the meeting in Denver.* Knowing now about the memo, I am disappointed it was not given to us at the meeting of the Bishops’ Conference,” said Archbishop Burke.

catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=1210&section=Featured+Today

 

[deogratias]

I am not one to criticize the Holy Father - except I don’t understand why no Bishop is ever demoted and why some are ever promoted.

In a recent article by Alice von Hildebrand called* How Did We Get Off Course *she made note that

“Today when Peter, who holds the keys, makes it clear rthat he wants certain things to be corrected, his requests are uncermoniously ignored…What is the sense of having authority if it is not used?..We all know of bishops who certainlyh do not live up to their calling. Rome is aware of this. But these Bishops know they can continue shirking their responsibilities because they know they will not be demoted”

Of course Ratzinger is not Peter but he represents Peter in those matters and is also unceremoniously ignored.

Pius XI took away a cardinal’s red hat because the latter had dared challenge a papal decision. I wish John Paul II would clean house before he leaves us.

 

[otm]

Why anyone would be surprised at how this was handled is beyond me. McCarrick was public in his statements even before the committee met to discuss the issue; he did not feel it was prudential.

I don’t feel the timing was prudential at all. What brought it to the forefront was Kerry entering the race and clearly leading. But Canon 915 has been on the books for how long? And prudentially, to slap him with 915 is to risk a horrendous back lash. Like it or not, bishops need to be judicious when they do something. Were they to have popped Kerry, the press would have had a field day (it has already had a pretty good run at it). And anyone who thinks the press would treat this issue fairly must have been missing in action for the last several years during the sexual abuse crisis. Even when the press gets that facts straight, they are eminently capable of spinning them, right before your eyes.

Ultimatley, the issue is one for each bishop to decide. So before I went about damning McCarrick, I might want to weigh a few other things.

I think it was in California, although I am not sure of the state, that a woman was excommunicated while she was running for office. My reccollection is that she wasn’t doing all that well before the Church acted. It was seen as a political act, and she won.

You and I can agree it is not a politicial act in any way, shape or form. We can agree that it is extremely appropriate, is the honor and respect we owe the Eucharist, and is a teaching point on what the Church has held and taught and believed for 2000 years.

You know what? The world not only doesn’t care if we agree, but they are going to get their own take on it from the secular press, and it is going to have a field day…Maybe McCarrick is a bit smarter than we give him credit for? Maybe he understands the world of cause and effect a little more astutely than you or I? Maybe he understands that once you pull the trigger, you can’t put the bullet back in the barrel? Maybe he’s walked down this path before, and seen the mess a seemingly correct decision can make? It is one thing to second guess someone else’s decision. It is entirely another thing to make that decision, and have to live with the results; results that impact not only yourself, but everone around you.

 

[MrS]

deogratias:

I am not one to criticize the Holy Father - except I don’t understand why no Bishop is ever demoted and why some are ever promoted.

Pius XI took away a cardinal’s red hat because the latter had dared challenge a papal decision. I wish John Paul II would clean house before he leaves us.

If JPII has a fault it is definitly his serious lack of discipline. As for cleaning house - ain’t gonna happen. He actually promotes too many lousy bishops to Cardinal. To say that he is being mislead by those who suggest these elevation is only a cop-out. He has had ample opportunity to de-cap a Cardinal. But the Holy Spirit is still in charge and has the last word… like taking the “theologian” VonBalthasar from this earth two days before he would have received his red hat. VonB taught the “possibility” that hell is empty. JPII concered. Sad.

MrS

 

[jimmy]

Joanna:

Some bishops (and archbishop) got it right.

Most Reverend John F. Donnoghue, Most Reverend Robert J. Baker and Most Reverend Peter J. Jugis are stand up bishops. They issued a statement from which I quote:

**"Because of the influence that Catholics in public life have on the conduct of our daily lives and on the formation of our nation’s future, we declare that Catholics serving in public life espousing positions contrary to the teaching of the Church on the sanctity and inviolability of human life, especially those running for or elected to public office are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in any Catholic church within our jurisdictions: the Archdiocese of Atlanta, the Dioceses of Charleston and Charlotte. Only after reconciliation with the Church has occurred, with the knowledge and consent of the local bishop, and public disavowal of former support for procured abortion, will the individual be permitted to approach the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. **
We undertake this action to safeguard the sacred dignity of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, to reassure the faithful, and to save sinners. "

---

[](http://www.spiritdaily.com/atlanta2.htm)

Those bishops have done a great thing and hopefully they influence more bishops to do the same.

 

[HagiaSophia]

deogratias:

I am not one to criticize the Holy Father - except I don’t understand why no Bishop is ever demoted and why some are ever promoted…

Most of them got the job due to recommendations by their ordinaries and approval by the nuncio of their respective nation. It has also been said, that it hasn’t hurt to have a few powerful friends in one of the curial Congregations to move your name up a little.

The pope in his most recent book criticized himself for perhaps a lack of administrative “correction” but then forgave himself about 6 sentences later. It is simply not his style. His 11th commandment appears to be “collegiality” and extending “fraternal charity” to any lengths when it comes to fellow bishops. I believe once Cardinal Oddi explained that the MO since Vatican II has been not to “expel” recalcitrant members but to lead by example and hope that they “follow”. One would think that at this point, someone would have noted that it hasn’t worked out all that well for us.

With his advanced age, disabilities and the ubiquitous traveling I think “delegated” authority has probably dispersed authority throughout the curial administration and as always, they will seek to keep a balance, liberals, conservatives, middlers, and independents.

IMHO we will not see any change to this until the next pontificate and then it will depend on who we get.

deogratias:

Of course Ratzinger is not Peter but he represents Peter in those matters and is also unceremoniously ignored.

I think the duplicitious manner in which the Cardinal’s letter to his fellow bishops at their recent meeting was handled, affirmed everything I ever believed and suspected about the NCCB’s management.

deogratias:

Pius XI took away a cardinal’s red hat because the latter had dared challenge a papal decision. I wish John Paul II would clean house before he leaves us.

And Sheen lost his red hat because he denounced aloud and pointed his finger at two cardinals in the room in front of Pius XII who thought it such a breach of episcopal manners that Sheen wa never made cardinal. As Prince Charles once remarked wistfully, “well it was somewhat easier in the days when you could simply say, off with their heads”.
:yup:

 

[Antonio_B]

Otm,

I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of the bishops’ actions.

You stated “I don’t feel the time was prudential at all.” Well I don’t think the matter is one of prudence but rather a matter in which bishops had to take the high moral road to teach the faithful that the Eucharist is sacred and that no Catholic, politician or not, should receive it, if not properly disposed. McCarrick knew and knows quite well the meaning of Canon 915 and knew that spiritual considerations and matters of church discipline take precedence over politics, yet neither he nor the rest of the 185 bishops had the courage, the stamina, the backbone to defend the Church’s doctrinal teaching on the Eucharist.

For 300 years we were openly persecuted by the Romans, yet our martyrs died rather than betray our Lord and faith. The bishops would have been pilloried by the media, no question about it, but death would not have been a consideration and they could have shown the People of God “real” leadership. Instead, they showed moral cowardice, poor leadership, and to add insult to injury, they tried to present their decision as a “courageous decision,” when thinking Catholics everywhere, knew better.

Indeed here in California the Bishop of San Diego denied a so-called “Catholic” politician the Eucharist because she persisted in upholding abortion and asking for the Catholic vote as she did the Kerry thing, portraying herself as a “good” Catholic. Yes, the backlash came in the form of electing her. However, the Bishop already died and I’m sure he told Our Lord and Savior, “I spoke the truth even when it was not popular.” Didn’t Our Lord say we have to be like Him, “signs of contradiction?” or did he say, "Dear bishops, before you make a tough decision, take into consideration the political upheaval you may cause with your actions, and don’t ever make a tough decision without consulting a “task force.” Thanks be to God, neither Archbishop Romero, nor St. Thomas a Becket, nor Bishop Fisher, nor Bishop Von Gallen, EVER compromised the truth of the faith because they were afraid of what the secular world would say about their actions. Take a look at the latest words of Archbishop Burke and Bishop Vasa. It says it all. Ratzinger’s letter was withheld from the Bishops for political reasons and thus Rome’s guidance was effectively blocked. If I were Ratzinger I would be pleading the Pope to “degrade” those bishops immediately as it is obvious they have little respect, if not contempt for Rome’s authority. If those bishops do not respect Rome, why should I, as a lay person, respect their authority in any way?

Antonio :banghead:

 

[HagiaSophia]

otm:

Why anyone would be surprised at how this was handled is beyond me. McCarrick was public in his statements even before the committee met to discuss the issue; he did not feel it was prudential.

McCarrick is not the entire NCCB and it was rather high handed not to tell his peers about the letter from the head of the CDF which had been sent to them prior to their decision making. If you read the rest of the Bishop Burke interview the bishops final decision appeared somewhat “engineered” by specific members of that national body.

otm:

I don’t feel the timing was prudential at all. What brought it to the forefront was Kerry entering the race and clearly leading…

No, what brought it to the forefront was Kerry making an issue of his Catholicism in an attempt to capture Catholic voters. Once he did that, the door was open.

otm:

But Canon 915 has been on the books for how long? And prudentially, to slap him with 915 is to risk a horrendous back lash…

Since when does the Church have to be prudential in admonishing people prior to an election that the abortion question is a primary one for them to consider both as Catholics and as voters?

otm:

Like it or not, bishops need to be judicious when they do something. Were they to have popped Kerry, the press would have had a field day (it has already had a pretty good run at it). And anyone who thinks the press would treat this issue fairly must have been missing in action

Than I am exceedingly grateful that when it was not prudential, the bishops spoke up and out during the persecution of the early martyrs. It certainly was not politically correct.

otm:

I think it was in California, although I am not sure of the state, that a woman was excommunicated while she was running for office. My reccollection is that she wasn’t doing all that well before the Church acted. It was seen as a political act, and she won…

I would be more concerned with the bishops acting as shepherds and teachers using their office - not whether someone in the newspaper office, or elsewhere liked it or didn’t. The position of the church is usually considered to be counter cultural. We are not supposed to seek the world’s approbation but to exhort it and change it.

otm:

Maybe McCarrick is a bit smarter than we give him credit for? .

I do not doubt that the good prelate is “smart”: - I suspect that a few of his fellow bishops will let him know privately that “smart” isn’t always the highest form of virtue.

otm:

It is entirely another thing to make that decision, and have to live with the results; results that impact not only yourself, but everone around you.

It goes with the territory - for a bishop to say that “he is not comfortable” making a decision with regard to the administration of the Eucharist left me singularly unimpressed.

 

[Antonio_B]

HagiaSophia:

McCarrick is not the entire NCCB and it was rather high handed not to tell his peers about the letter from the head of the CDF which had been sent to them prior to their decision making. If you read the rest of the Bishop Burke interview the bishops final decision appeared somewhat “engineered” by specific members of that national body.

No, what brought it to the forefront was Kerry making an issue of his Catholicism in an attempt to capture Catholic voters. Once he did that, the door was open.

Since when does the Church have to be prudential in admonishing people prior to an election that the abortion question is a primary one for them to consider both as Catholics and as voters?

Than I am exceedingly grateful that when it was not prudential, the bishops spoke up and out during the persecution of the early martyrs. It certainly was not politically correct.

I would be more concerned with the bishops acting as shepherds and teachers using their office - not whether someone in the newspaper office, or elsewhere liked it or didn’t. The position of the church is usually considered to be counter cultural. We are not supposed to seek the world’s approbation but to exhort it and change it.

I do not doubt that the good prelate is “smart”: - I suspect that a few of his fellow bishops will let him know privately that “smart” isn’t always the highest form of virtue.

It goes with the territory - for a bishop to say that “he is not comfortable” making a decision with regard to the administration of the Eucharist left me singularly unimpressed.

What else can I add to what you already said?

Antonio :clapping:

 

[HagiaSophia]

Antonio B:

What else can I add to what you already said?

I expect now that the other bishops know about the letter a few more will speak out and a few more will tell the good Cardinal that like Lucy, he has “a lot of 'splainin to do”.

 

[Antonio_B]

HagiaSophia:

I expect now that the other bishops know about the letter a few more will speak out and a few more will tell the good Cardinal that like Lucy, he has “a lot of 'splainin to do”.

Perhaps in the next November episcopal meeting some bishops will have the guts to demand an explanation from him. Perhaps the Holy See should do likewise!

Antonio

 

[HagiaSophia]

Antonio:

Perhaps in the next November episcopal meeting some bishops will have the guts to demand an explanation from him

Knowing bishops - I don’t think they will wait until November --these old boys don’t take kindly to this kind of stuff.

Antonio:

Perhaps the Holy See should do likewise
(

I sincerely hope that they are aware of just how it was done - I suspect that a few of the bishops will “mention” it

 

[otm]

I can understand all of what was said about McCarrick and his handling of the letter. However, to say that the Church should not be prudential is to agree with the historical deconstructionists who are having at it about Pius XII. He saw it as much more prudential to deal with the Holocaust issues by action rather than words. And he has been roundly abused for failing to make the bold statement; one that he apparently was aware would do more damage than good. And given the bold statements by the bishops in Holland, and the vicious reactions by the Germans, History, one cannot say Pius XII was unaware of what a bold statement would do.

Sorry, I really feel that the timing is flat out not prudential. Kerry has been holding himself out for what -16 years in the Senate?- and voting pro death for all of that time; he didn’t become the darling of “Planned Parenthood” 6 months ago! Hitting him now plays right into the hands of the Democrats; Kerry has bald face dared the bishops to react. There is probably nothing he woulld like more than to be able to play the martyr. I wouldn’t give him the chance.

Prudence does have its place in the Church. My recollection is that it is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yes, there is a time to give witness. But creating a firestorm that will so easily be manipulated into the appearance of politics doesn’t strike me as giving effective witness. For you and I, we get it. But the large majority of people who know little of the Church (and that includes a large part of the 65-70% of Catholics who don’t attend Mass regularly, and a number who do, as well as the anti Catholics and the ambivilent), appearance equals reality. And their reality would be that the Church is making a political statement. How long would it take to repair that damage? We sit at a point where it is possible that the Supreme Court balance can be changed. Are you really willing to accept the results Kerry has promised? 20 to 30 more years of a pro death Court?

And you think prudence has no place?

HagiaSophia, and AntonioB, think through the results of Kerry being elected. Think through the anti Catholicism of the Kennedy era, of the open contempt that the press has for the Church’s position on contraception, pre marital sex, euthanasia (Oregon voted twice; the first time it barely passed; the second time the press used the Church as the whipping boy and it was close to 2/3rds), homosexuality, cloning, etc., etc. Maybe you are willing to take an individual’s correction over the attendant consequences. I’m not. The issue needs to be addresses, absolutely. The bishops as a whole seem to have failed us in witness. But that failure has been over a long period of time. It needs to be correctd, absolutely. But correcting it today, as opposed to in 6 months could make a world of difference.

 

[HagiaSophia]

otm:

I can understand all of what was said about McCarrick and his handling of the letter. However, to say that the Church should not be prudential is to agree with the historical deconstructionists who are having at it about Pius XII.

No, it is not. Pius XII had tried the Dutch experiment, we lost Anne Frank and Edith Stein in the roundup that followed. Pius was under the constraints of life and death for many people, not just some disappointed politicans and religion writers. The issue of the reception of Saraments in our country was nothing like that situation at all and the anologies really don’t work.

otm:

Sorry, I really feel that the timing is flat out not prudential.

Because this has not been addressed publicly before, no time will be prudential. Once Kerry made an issue of his Catholicism and his reception and his pro choice stance-- he brought it into the public arena and put the ball firmly in the bishops court. Now, after the election, it will always be said that McCarrick hid the Vatican instruction to benefit Kerry and the Democratic party, it looks as if the church played politics and failed its members in not being clear about its teaching.

otm:

Kerry has bald face dared the bishops to react.

And we see who blinked first didn’t we?

otm:

There is probably nothing he woulld like more than to be able to play the martyr. I wouldn’t give him the chance.

You appear to be more concerned about Kerry and what he would do; I am far more concerned with what the bishops did and McCarrick withholding that letter and not advising his fellow bishops about it, has tainted any decision and made McCarrick look rather manipulative.

otm:

Prudence does have its place in the Church.

As the song says, you gotta know when to hold’em and you gotta know when to fold’em.

otm:

And their reality would be that the Church is making a political statement.

I fail to see that, no one expected Democrats to be the only people affected by this ruling; Catholics expected anyone from any party to be affected.

otm:

How long would it take to repair that damage?.

IMHO the hierarchy of the US church should hide most of their faces under their capes and hope to pass by their congregations unnoticed. The scandals have been such that it will be 100 years before the church ever regains the stature and credibility that it once had and it sits firmly at the doors of those who aided and abetted it. The sad part is that the few faithful shepherds were once again left out on their branch just as in the case of a few other things where they tried to hold the line and had their more liberal bretheren let them swing in the wind. Actually, now that I think of it, I might suggest to the bishops that they begin to worry less about what the newspapers and the politicians think of them and start wondering what their own congregations do.

otm:

But correcting it today, as opposed to in 6 months could make a world of difference.

It certainly has to me - I won’t forget the names and dioceses I can assure you.

 

[otm]

HagiaSophia:

No, it is not. Pius XII had tried the Dutch experiment, we lost Anne Frank and Edith Stein in the roundup that followed. Pius was under the constraints of life and death for many people, not just some disappointed politicans and religion writers. The issue of the reception of Saraments in our country was nothing like that situation at all and the anologies really don’t work.

Pius was under the constraints of life and death for many people, and the bishops today are not? We are loosing about 1,000,000 children to abortion each year. Kerry is batting 1.000 with Planned parenthood. You don’t see the connection?

And the point I am trying to make is this is not just about the reception of the sacraments as far as many, if not most voters are concerned… Perception becomes reality for all too many people; you and I can distinguish between an internal coorection by the Church, and a public statement about politics; most people can’t and don’t care to. And I can guarantee the press won’t.
Because this has not been addressed publicly before, no time will be prudential. Once Kerry made an issue of his Catholicism and his reception and his pro choice stance-- he brought it into the public arena and put the ball firmly in the bishops court. Now, after the election, it will always be said that McCarrick hid the Vatican instruction to benefit Kerry and the Democratic party, it looks as if the church played politics and failed its members in not being clear about its teaching.

Kerry Made the connection 16 years ago or more. It was not made as public as now when he runs for President, but Senators are not unkown throughout the nation for their stances. And why is it that no time would be prudential? Why is three to six months after the election not prudential? If Kerry wins, it is not non prudential to ban him afterwards; if he looses it is no less prudential to ban him then as it would have been to ban him 16 years ago, or three, or 12 months ago. Banning him now invites every fool idiot with a pen or a camera to make him a martyr.

And we see who blinked first didn’t we?

I’m not convinced it was a blink.

You appear to be more concerned about Kerry and what he would do; I am far more concerned with what the bishops did and McCarrick withholding that letter

Kerry has made it abundantly clear what he intends to do if elected; he will not only back track us on any federal laws restricting abortion, but he will peddle it world wide. How many more millions of childrent do we need to sacrifice?