May 4, 2008
Benedict XVI and the U.S. Bishops
The recent papal trip to the U.S. has brought out a definite contrast, in my opinion, between Benedict XVI's leadership and the general leadership of the U.S. Bishops. Listening to the pope I get a sense of clarity, continuity, and inspiration. It saddens me to say that recent events regarding some bishops has left me confused and disappointed.
The recent scandal involving Archbishop Wuerl of Washington DC and notoriously pro-abortion politicians being given communion at the papal Mass is the most recent example. Wuerl has argued that "any decision to bar prominent politicians from receiving communion should be made by the bishop in their local diocese after clear efforts to persuade and convince the person that their actions are wrong and bear moral consequences." I understand that refusing someone communion is a strong and difficult action. But how does this reconcile with what the Church has stated about pro-abortion politicians not receiving communion?
This seems like displacing responsibility to me. Can't the bishops work together to stop the confusion on the matter, especially since the repercussions are so important? I mean, we're talking about the Eucharist here; God Himself, the center of our faith, not some small tradition with a little "t". We are dealing with abortion - the biggest war and lie the world has ever known. I agree with Cardinal William Levada, who states that this kind of thinking is dabbling in "territorial morality". How is it possible that things change so much from diocese to diocese within the same country? If I'm missing something here I welcome the correction.
How confusing and how sad, especially when one of the biggest things the pope stressed was unity. We have to pray, pray, pray and storm heaven with sacrifices for that unity.
In Christ,
Daniel
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Speaking as someone who highly favors barring pro-abortion politicians from receiving communion, I do have to wonder how one would go about enforcing such discipline given how mobile and anonymous we all are.
Would we just go for obvious, notorious, high-profile politicians and let ourselves be accused of hypocrisy for turning a blind eye to those who have less political mileage?
Would we distribute inter-diocesan blacklists to all ministers of the Eucharist and run the risk of denying communion in the case of mistaken identity?
In cases of doubt, do we err on the side of trust or protecting the Eucharist? I prefer the former but I've read articles calling for the latter.
Do we adopt a model developed by some Protestant denominations and distribute diocesan whitelists and have people provide proof of identification as they come forward? Do we ask visitors from other dioceses to either refrain from communicating or apply for faculties in advance?
While the current "honor-system" is clearly being abused and has many problems, would a "suspicion-system" be both practical and more desirable?
Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at May 11, 2008 10:17 AMThanks for the post, Burnt. I don't think it would be hypocritical for the Bishops to focus only on politicians, since their positions are public and have serious consequences for the people under their rule. Also, if the politicians repented, they would have to publicly change their stance on a position, and they would publicly be back in line with the Church.
Regarding people who aren't politicians and do not have their positions made to the public, I think would one would have to err on the side of trust, because the Eucharistic minister would never know if they had recently gone to confession and repented.
Daniel,
Your suggestions seem reasonable to me. I don't think it would be hypocritical to ask for public repentance in the case of a public pro-abortion position. But I do believe that the Church would be accused of hypocrisy. That being said, we are accused of worshipping Mary yet we still venerate her.
Even so, the number of Catholic politicians who publicly promote abortion would still be large enough to require the distribution of inter-diocesan blacklists and we would have problems of mistaken identity. Are you suggesting we go down this path?
Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at May 12, 2008 9:07 PMBurnt,
I don't think having a blacklist would be a wise pastoral move to protect the Eucharist and encourage people in mortal sin to repent. I agree too that there would be problems of mistaken identity.
It seems to me that if all the U.S. Bishops spoke in unison and worked together to do what a few bishops have heriocally done, that is, to meet with the Catholic pro-abortion politicians in their diocese in private to discuss the grave immoral stance they take and publicly state that they should not receive communion if they dont change their position, then there would not be any confusion or scandal. Also, the Archbishop of Washington DC would need more help and prayers because of his special situation.
If a politician wants to manipulate the bishops and go to a different diocese to take advantage of ministers distributing communion on the side of trust, then the scandal lies on the politician, because the bishops would have been very clear and taken the necessary steps to protect the Eucharist while avoiding mistaken identity. This would also avoid the danger of "territorial morality" Cardinal Levada mentioned.
I think the basic question to ask is: "Why have only a few U.S. bishops spoken in unison with the Pope?"
Posted by: Daniel at May 15, 2008 11:16 AM
