Posted on 07/09/2004 7:19:29 AM PDT by LifeSite News
Controversy Heats up over Cardinal McCarrick Downplaying Vatican Direction on Communion
WASHINGTON, July 7, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - With the release of the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger stating Communion must be denied to obstinately pro-abortion Catholic politicians, Cardinal McCarrick's report on the letter given at the U.S. Bishops Meeting last month has come under fire. - snip - However, as LifeSiteNews.com pointed out on July 5, the current incident is the second time Cardinal McCarrick seems to have contradicted the Vatican over the issue of denying communion.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesite.net ...
We must remember McCarrick is the point man for Kerry and the other LIBERAL bishops such as missing-in action Egan in N,Y.The best Egan could do in the latest edition of 'Catholic New York[which he has turned into a rag],is to reprint a column by McCarrick's shill,Jerry Filteau. It is full of half-truths.The name of Cardinal Ratziger is not mentioned once in the article.
I think it is important for Freepers to see just how duplicitous or confused the cardinal and his cohorts in the Amchurch are.The article also shows how complicit the National unCatholic Reporter is with this false church within the Church.Let's shine the light of Truth on Gramsci's guerrillas and the "church of the new and different vision".
McCarrick has outed himself. He may be affable,pleasant and pastoral but Catholic,he is not.
Revelations in chapter 2 or 3 says it best:"Beware of those who say they are Apostles,who are not;they lie". That's a very loose translatiion but everyone should read those two chapters from Revelation,they contain the letters to the churches in different locations. What wa true then still is.
WASHINGTON, July 7, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - With the release of the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger stating Communion must be denied to obstinately pro-abortion Catholic politicians, Cardinal McCarrick's report on the letter given at the U.S. Bishops Meeting last month has come under fire. LifeSiteNews.com pointed out the discrepancy between Cardinal Ratzinger's letter and Cardinal McCarrick's presentation of that letter in a July 5 article. On July 6 a Washington Times headline read "McCarrick tempered letter on pro-choice politicians."
Times reporter Julia Duin reports that McCarrick "downplayed" the Vatican Cardinal's letter which she noted "contains much stronger language than Cardinal McCarrick used." Duin notes that McCarrick used "nuanced speech" in presenting the Ratzinger letter even though "as the chairman of a task force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, it was his job to convey what Vatican officials had told him during meetings in Rome."
The key point in the controversy is that Cardinal Ratzinger said that pro-abortion politicians, who will not alter their stand or abstain from communion after being instructed by church leaders, "must" be refused communion. McCarrick never presented Ratzinger's intervention as one which indicated the refusal of communion to be mandatory under any such circumstances. Rather McCarrick went to great lengths to present the denial of communion as optional.
The Times quotes internationally respected U.S. Catholic theologian Michael Novak saying, "Ratzinger's letter was stronger and firmer than we were led to believe. It's pretty dynamite stuff." Duin reports that Novak heard of "dissatisfaction" in Rome over how Cardinal McCarrick was representing the church's teachings. "I had heard Rome was much tougher than Cardinal McCarrick was letting on," he said. "Some people in the Vatican were upset that McCarrick was putting on too kind a face on it."
The Times also quotes former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Raymond Flynn on why North American bishops often water down Vatican statements. "The American church has been reluctant to speak out forcefully on a lot of these issues, whereas Pope John Paul II has instructed the Catholic Church to be more assertive," said Flynn. "A lot of these American bishops aren't willing to get involved because of the backlash, because it's not politically correct, and the criticism they will receive from the liberal media," he said.
Reacting to the controversy over the discrepancy, Cardinal McCarrick said through spokesman Susan Gibbs that the leaked Ratzinger letter "may represent an incomplete and partial leak of a private communication from Cardinal Ratzinger and it may not accurately reflect the full message I received." He added, "Our task force's dialogue with the Holy See on these matters has been extensive, in person, by phone and in writing."
However, as LifeSiteNews.com pointed out on July 5, the current incident is the second time Cardinal McCarrick seems to have contradicted the Vatican over the issue of denying communion.
In April, the Vatican's leading prelate on the Sacraments, Cardinal Francis Arinze, declared unequivocally that unambiguously pro-abortion politicians should be denied Holy Communion. Cardinal Arinze said such a politician "is not fit" to receive Communion. "If they should not receive, then they should not be given," he said. Cardinal McCarrick reacted to Cardinal Arinze's statements by suggesting that Arinze did not really mean what he said. Speaking with the National Catholic Reporter, McCarrick said of Cardinal Arinze, "I don't think it was his eminence's official opinion . . . The cardinal's position . . . was that . . . the United States should figure out what they ought to do."
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Highest Authorities in Vatican Back Denial of Communion to Pro-Abortion Politicians
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/040
70501.html
See the Washington Times coverage:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/200407
07-122623-1092r.htm
See the Catholic News Service report on Cardinal McCarrick's reaction to the leaked letter:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories
/cns/0403723.htm
If one wants to look at the sunny side,the B/bishops by a vote of 183 to 6,voted to allow the Bishops to follow Rome rather than the "imposters",who have,to this point,forced the entire group of B/bishops to follow them. They (the imposter bishops) did this by falsely interpreting and then enforcing a nebulous,ambiguous,nonsensical and false "collegiality".
The (impostr bishops) led by the lying McCarrick's resolution would have said that denial of communion was not to be used to punish catholics,who "in good conscience" received. In a sense this was/is the beginning of the counter revolution of the CAtholic Church in America.
I believe you've got the vote backwards. The bishops voted 183-6 in favor of ignoring canon law and Rome in order that they could continue to practice their own, individual (and often twisted) logic to justify giving the likes of Kerry Holy Communion.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a 183-6 vote during a closed meeting in the Denver suburb of Englewood, Colorado, said each decision about denying communion to some Catholics in public life should rest with the individual bishop "in accord with established canonical and pastoral principles." The statement also said bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the "most prudent" course of action.
Am I missing something here? They say, “according to established canonical principle." Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law reads: “. . .those who (like Senator Kerry and many others in Congress) obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
So, it is apparent the bishops are clueless concerning canon law, or they are talking out of the sides of their mouths - the masters of double speak.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the bishops latest proclamation is that if you are a sinner and want to receive Holy Communion and not feel guilty, even if you have a mortal sin on your soul and don’t want to go to confession, your odds are 183 to 6 that you will be in a diocese where the bishop doesn’t care. And if it ever leaks out, who the 6 good shepherds are, who follow the will of God and you abhor Godly bishops, you can always receive Communion in the next diocese. This is what the Catholic Pro-abortion politicians will be doing.
http://catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=16808
I don't think the American Bishops really want to hear what they should do and I don't think this is at all what Arinze said.
We should start a fax campaign and each send picture of a spine to McCarrick.
A_R
Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, please send me a FReepmail. Please note that this is occasionally a high volume ping list and some of my ping posts are long.)
What is most disturbing is the lack of fraternal correction of these SOBs by the Vatican, who elevated jerks like McCarrick and Mahoney in the first place.
Yes it is.
Well there you have it. McCarrick is a good Kerryman (pun intended) and has mastered the art of the "nuance".
Not too far off topic: I just heard on the Howie Carr show that the Boston Herald is working on a story about that heresy charge Marc Baliestrieri (a canon lawyer based in CA) filed against Kerry.
I haven't heard yet whether O'Malley will act; if he doesn't, I gather Balestrieri has the option of appealing to Rome.
They will not; they're Catholics.
Correction: I misread your question,
They will not give them Holy Communion; they're Catholics.
so once again it seems that in fact sspx is actually more obedient to Holy See than most bishops on crucial issues.
Uuuhhhhnnnhhh-"Fraternal Correction" evidently doesn't work. That's why R. sent a copy of his letter to the Italian newspaper.
"Luci old boy, how did you let 6 of 'em get away like that?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.