Posted on 10/31/2014 2:29:28 PM PDT by ebb tide
According to the Archbishop of Washington, the recent Synod on the Family worked to address the challenge that many young people today don’t fully understand the nature of marriage.
“There were a good number of us within the synod who felt, given the heavily secular climate today in which so many of our young people are living – what they see in media, television, electronic print, in movies, the music they listen to, the world they’re engaged in – (that) the idea of a permanent, enduring bond that would be life-giving and at the same time be indissoluble is not uppermost in their awareness of marriage,” Cardinal Donald Wuerl asserted in an Oct. 30 conference call.
Cardinal Wuerl was speaking about the Oct. 5-19 extraordinary Synod of Bishops, which was held in anticipation of next year's World Meeting of Families and the ordinary Synod on the Family. After the 2015 synod, Pope Francis is expected to issue an apostolic exhortation.
In his analysis of the synod, Cardinal Wuerl specifically discussed two negative outcomes of confusion about the nature of marriage: cohabitation, and the failure of some marriages.
“One of the increasing concerns is the number of people who aren’t even getting married today: the number of people who are simply living together without benefits of even civil marriage. And that says, to me, we have a long way to go in helping present as clearly as we can the beautiful gift that is marriage,” Cardinal Wuerl stated.
Another area of concern among synod fathers was the process of marriage annulment.
“The fact that there are Catholic couples and people who have re-married, and therefore can’t come to Communion, the fact that they would desperately like to do so, and the Church recognizes the good of that; the question is, 'how do we do that while being faithful to the teaching of the Church concerning the bond?' That brings us to the question of an annulment, the declaration that there never was a bond in the first place,” Cardinal Wuerl commented.
It was in reference to this that he suggested that “so many of our young people” might not have a correct understanding of marriage, to the extent that they cannot validly contract a marriage.
“Having said all that,” he continued, “there were many, many of us who felt (that) if we’re going to go the route of annulment, then that process can’t be so costly or so burdensome that it becomes a weight around the shoulders of the people trying to regularize their situation.”
Cardinal Wuerl added that “there were a number of suggestions on how to do that,” and that “that’s probably going to be an area that there’ll be a lot of discussion (about) between now and the next synod.”
One way to address the widespread confusion about the nature of marriage would be to properly catechize children and teenagers about the faith, the cardinal continued, beginning in Catholic schools.
Regarding a term that received much attention in the synod’s mid-term report – causing media speculation and confusion – the principle of “graduality” was nowhere to be found in the final document, Cardinal Wuerl confirmed.
“The whole concept of 'graduality' – that surfaced but you don’t find it in the final document,” he said.
“And I think one of the reasons for that is it’s a theological concept. It’s not a concept that you find well-expounded, well-defined, well-developed. And so if there’s going to be any reference to that in the future, I think it’s going to require a lot more thought and a lot more theological penetration." "That doesn’t mean it won’t come back up again, but my thought is that ... it needs a lot more thought and a lot more theological development."
Donna Wuerl Ping
:o/
Why are they worried about annulment? They were behind the eight ball when it came to abortion. The ball passed the plate on them when it came to euthanasia.
Why do you continue to be so disrespectful by calling him “Donna?” He is an ordained bishop by St. John Paul II, and elevated to Cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI. Is it possible the saint and other pope know a few things you don’t?
You have accused him of being an homosexual, but never provided any evidence. Continuing this slander causes scandal, because you are implying obedience to an ordinary isn’t required.
So, now he is clearly stating what the Church teaches, while acknowledging the situation of society.
What are you going to criticize about him now?
” ...would be to properly catechize children and teenagers about the faith, the cardinal continued”
Sorry Cardinal, that ball was dropped fifty years ago.
His abject hypocrisy.
_______________________________
Cardinal Wuerl's silence is deafening. He still hasn't commented directly on his baldly unjust "administrative leave" order to Fr. Marcel Guarnizo. Nor has he explained to the faithful why Barbara Johnson, the self-described practicing lesbian and Buddhist to whom Fr. Guarnizo properly denied Communion, enjoys a canonical right to the sacred species.
Perversely, Cardinal Wuerl has at once violated the canonical rights of a faithful priest while inventing out of thin air a "policy" that orders his subordinates to distribute the Eucharist to anti-Catholic activists and defiant mortal sinners. In his apology to Barbara Johnson, via one of his auxiliary bishops, Cardinal Wuerl rebuked Fr. Guarnizo for a lack of "pastoral" sensitivity. This is Cardinal Wuerl's euphemism for priestly action that takes orthodox teaching and discipline seriously.
http://spectator.org/articles/35773/cardinal-wuerls-continuing-crisis
----------------------
Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. has stated that he would not deny Holy Communion to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the most notoriously pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians in the U.S., because he says historically “the Church just didn’t use Communion” as a “weapon.”
In an interview published in a Politics Daily article today, Bishop Wuerl said he disagreed with refraining from giving communion to manifestly pro-abortion politicians, which was equated with “Communion wielded as a weapon.” “That’s the new way now to make your point,” said Wuerl.
“We never - the Church just didn’t use Communion this way. It wasn’t a part of the way we do things, and it wasn’t a way we convinced Catholic politicians to appropriate the faith and live it and apply it; the challenge has always been to convince people.’’ On the other hand, sanctioning Catholics tends to alienate them, he said.
Wuerl said he will make no effort to keep Speaker Pelosi from receiving Communion, saying first “there’s a question about whether this canon [915] was ever intended to be used’’ to correct Catholics in grave error.
Canon 915 states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
“I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way,” said Wuerl.
Wuerl also said that he thought “we’ve been making progress” in conveying the pro-life message to the Democratic Party, but “There was just a setback with the distraction of Communion.”
Wuerl’s statements appear to contradict a 2004 statement by the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger titled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” in which Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, stated: "Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”
With quotations from a 2002 declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Ratzinger continues: “When ‘these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,’ and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, ‘the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it’.”
“This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty,” Ratzinger wrote. “Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”
In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) in February, Archbishop Raymond Burke, the head of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, agreed with Ratzinger’s assertion that bishops have no choice but to withhold communion from manifestly pro-abortion politicians.
Burke told LSN: “I don’t understand the continual debate that goes on about it [denying communion to pro-abortion politicians]. There’s not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion.”
“The Church’s law is very clear,” said Burke. “The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [canon law] doesn’t say that the bishop shall decide this. It’s an absolute.”
Burke also called “nonsense” the idea that the Church’s law “makes the Communion rail a battleground,” and said the opposite was true: not enforcing Canon 915 frequently results in using Communion unto political advantage.”
Failing to enforce Canon 915, said Burke, means pro-abortion politicians - such as Sen. John Kerry, who published several photographs of himself receiving Communion from Papal representatives - are able to send a message to Catholic voters that they are in good standing with the Church despite supporting abortion, which the Church considers an intrinsic evil.
“What are they doing? They’re using the Eucharist as a political tool,” said Burke.
Pope John Paul II lavished the homo-pervert Marcial Macial with unending praise.
When are you going to answer my question about evidence regarding your claim of Cardinal Wuehrl’s sexuality? Twice I have asked you to provide proof for your claim, and twice you have ignored me.
I think I know the answer. Your claim is baseless and scurrilous.
I think you make very good points, and agree with them.
My complaint was a vicious and scurrilous charge against Cardinal Wuerhl made by ebbtide.
What you have stated is fully documented and worthy of discussion.
His actions regarding Fr. Guarnizo, as well as his non-enforcement of Canon 915 should be criticized.
If you know the answer stop asking. Otherwise google “Wuerl homosexuals”.
Please quote my “vicious and scurrilous” charge so I may properly address it.
Thanks
No, you made the claim, you back it up.
If you can’t, it is slander. Own it.
You have called Cardinal Wuerhl an homosexual.
Please substantiate that charge.
What claim?
Wow! I was totally wrong! I owe you a very big, and humbling apology.
I sincerely apologize for stating you called Cardinal Wuerhl an homosexual. You clearly didn’t. I was wrong.
I went back to try and figure out why I wrote what I wrote, and the closest I could come was a different thread.
Again, you have my sincerest apologies.
Donna Wuerl insists that pro-abortion politicians be given Communion.
That leaves him with NO rational basis for denying Communion to ANYONE else, including adulterous and gay couples.
He continued gay Masses in Pittsburgh for NINE YEARS after the CDF (Ratzinger) ordered them stopped.
Burke is right, of course.
In 2004, the bishops of the U.S. voted themselves the right to commit mortal sin. They said in a document, "Catholics in Political Life," that a bishop may "legitimately" give Communion to pro-aborts. This is nonsense. Doing so is a mortal sin.
And not a peep from “St” JPII or the so-called traditionally minded BXVI.
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.