Wuerl: Pro-Abortion Pols Taking Communion Need Local Discipline

  • Thread starter Thread starter sertelt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sertelt

Guest
Archbishop Wuerl: Pro-Abortion Pols Taking Communion Need Local Discipline

Washington, DC – Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl has responded to the recent controversy involving pro-abortion politicians taking communion during the Pope’s visit. he says Catholic politicians should oppose abortion and not take communion if they do, but said local enforcement is necessary.

During Pope Benedict XVI’s visit last month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and former mayor Rudy Giuliani came under criticism for taking communion.

Full story at:
lifenews.com/state3203.html
 
So isn’t he local enforcement in Washington? Is he planning to speak with them? What do you think the chances are?
 
KatieD said:
So isn’t he local enforcement in Washington? Is he planning to speak with them? What do you think the chances are?
Click to expand...
No, what was written in another article which I posted to another thread in this section was that Bishop Wuerl indicated that the Archbishops in the home diocese for these politicians was responsible for addressing their failure to abide by teachings of the church.
 
Wuerl has his blinders on. Wuerl is a dud. Who appointed Wuerl and why was HE appointed? Are we stuck with Wuerl now for another decade or two?
 
mdzialo said:
Wuerl has his blinders on. Wuerl is a dud. Who appointed Wuerl and why was HE appointed? Are we stuck with Wuerl now for another decade or two?
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict the XVI appointed him the see of Washington, DC.

He’s 68 years old…that would mean about 7 more years of having someone who makes sense in the important position of DC Metropolitan.
 
I think the good archbishop is passing the buck. But to his credit, he is right in saying the bishops of the congressional districts have the PRIMARY responsibility of chastening the errant senators, congressmen or other officials. But since they fail in their duty, it seems to me, the responsibility falls on him. An analogy: if an errant child is not reprimanded by his parents and he commits an unacceptable act in my house, I have the right, if not the duty, to reprimand him. It would be an act of charity.
But, unfortunately, the bishops, both good and not so good, belong to a big happy club and they are loath to step on one another’s toes. Sad but true.
For shame: I have not said a prayer for Archbishop Wuerl. I will now and if you read this, please join me in at least one Hail Mary for him.
 
Canonically the bishop is dead on, and also is doing the right thing by defering to the local ordinary.

The problem would be that the perception of many is that the Catholic church is one giant worldwide monolith, which it isn’t.
 
Okay, so do we expect their local bishops to say anything to them? And again, I ask, what do you think the chances of that are? It seems to me that no one wants to say anything to these people, who thumb their noses at the Church, proclaim their Catholicism, walk right up to receive the Eucharist, and then fight for abortion rights and anti-life judges when they walk out of the church doors.
 
I think the archbishop is right that he doesn’t have authority over most of the members of Congress. Their homes are in other states and hence in other dioceses. If their temporary homes are in DC or nearby Maryland he could possibly be their bishop, but Virginia would be not only a different diocese but a different province. It seems a stretch to say that he is their shepherd.

I don’t think you can put the responsibility on a single bishop. And when this issue has come up before there hasn’t been a consensus among the bishops regarding politicians receiving communion based on their voting records.
 
gjbrunning said:
An analogy: if an errant child is not reprimanded by his parents and he commits an unacceptable act in my house, I have the right, if not the duty, to reprimand him. It would be an act of charity.
Click to expand...
A slightly better analogy is if you had say, perhaps, 100 or 200 children in your house! Would you be up to the task? You would most likely tell every one to go home, an option Archbishop Wuerl does not have. It’a hard to imagine the challenges of trying to lead such an archdiocese effectively.
 
Forty five million abortions. What can Wuerl do? Nothing much - just pass the buck. That’s because Wuerl has his blinders on, and so do a lot of people, evidently.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
I think the archbishop is right that he doesn’t have authority over most of the members of Congress. Their homes are in other states and hence in other dioceses.
Click to expand...
The archbishop is the final authority in his own diocese. It makes no more sense to say he should not withhold communion from Catholics who are not in full communion with the Church than it would be to say he should not withhold it from Protestants - who are obviously not part of his diocese either.

We may perhaps not speculate on why he has failed in this duty but we may surely note the fact that he has failed in it.

Ender
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
I think the archbishop is right that he doesn’t have authority over most of the members of Congress. Their homes are in other states and hence in other dioceses. If their temporary homes are in DC or nearby Maryland he could possibly be their bishop, but Virginia would be not only a different diocese but a different province. It seems a stretch to say that he is their shepherd.

I don’t think you can put the responsibility on a single bishop. And when this issue has come up before there hasn’t been a consensus among the bishops regarding politicians receiving communion based on their voting records.
Click to expand...
The bishop has complete authority over what takes place in his diocese, in this case, the location where scandal is being given. He can tell a person who publicly advocates for abortion not to approach to receive in his diocese. If Wuerl’s theory holds true, then a bishop has no authority to say what goes on in a parish or university when outsiders come in to speak or advocate for their causes. It happens all the time that a bishop intervenes to stop an anti-Catholic speaker from using Catholic property. If he can do that and not govern who participates in the sacraments and receives Jesus in Holy Communion in his jurisdiction I am not sure we need bishops. Wuerl is making this up to suit his agenda, which is to keep silent on this matter of grave scandal.
 
mdzialo said:
Wuerl has his blinders on. Wuerl is a dud. Who appointed Wuerl and why was HE appointed? Are we stuck with Wuerl now for another decade or two?
Click to expand...
The use such language for a consecrated man of God is uncharitable and unacceptable. You cannot know what he is doing privately to chastize and make corrections. Please tell me, should Wuerl have made an announcement over the loudspeaker that Pelosi, Kennedy, et al should not present themselves? The bigger sin is the person who presents himself unworthily (Paul).
 
qui_est_ce said:
The use such language for a consecrated man of God is uncharitable and unacceptable. You cannot know what he is doing privately to chastize and make corrections. Please tell me, should Wuerl have made an announcement over the loudspeaker that Pelosi, Kennedy, et al should not present themselves? The bigger sin is the person who presents himself unworthily (Paul).
Click to expand...
A loudspeaker would do nicely.
 
qui_est_ce said:
Please tell me, should Wuerl have made an announcement over the loudspeaker that Pelosi, Kennedy, et al should not present themselves?
Click to expand...
Wuerl’s public policy is that communion is not to be withheld from pro-abortion politicians. If his public policy was that it should be withheld I suspect that we wouldn’t have pictures of them receiving at a papal mass.
The bigger sin is the person who presents himself unworthily (Paul).
Click to expand...
Probably so, but Wuerl contributed to their sin and bears some responsibility for it.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Wuerl’s public policy is that communion is not to be withheld from pro-abortion politicians. If his public policy was that it should be withheld I suspect that we wouldn’t have pictures of them receiving at a papal mass.
Probably so, but Wuerl contributed to their sin and bears some responsibility for it.

Ender
Click to expand...
I believe that the home diocese must inform the person to be denied communion. Privately first then if the situation continues publicly. Then they need to inform the other bishops of the decision. It could well be better to allow the situation to remain as is. We have no idea of the problems public media coverage of denial of communion would or could cause for everyone involved.
 
frommi said:
Canonically the bishop is dead on, and also is doing the right thing by defering to the local ordinary.

The problem would be that the perception of many is that the Catholic church is one giant worldwide monolith, which it isn’t.
Click to expand...
Canon 915 says nothing regarding the diocese within which the communicant lives. The Canon addresses what action the minister of the Eucharist is to take in the event a public sinner attempts to partake of Holy Communion, which in this case occurred in the Washington D.C. diocese.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top